Punctuation in Eighteenth-Century English Grammars

Home , Caret, English grammar, English punctuation, French grammar, Sic, Thomas Sheridan (actor)

Departamento de Filología Moderna

TESIS DOCTORAL

Punctuation in Eighteenth-Century

English Grammars

Beatriz del R. Medina Sánchez

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 2015

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Departamento de Filología Moderna

Programa de Doctorado: Estudios Interdisciplinares de Lengua, Literatura, Cultura, Traducción y Tradición Clásica

Punctuation in Eighteenth-Century English Grammars

TESIS DOCTORAL

Dirigida por la Doctora: La Doctoranda:

Dña. Alicia Rodríguez Álvarez Beatriz del R. Medina Sánchez

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Enero 2015

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Acknowledgments

In this short passage of my thesis I want to acknowledge and give thanks to all the people who have been supportive to me in a certain way when elaborating this study. The very first person I want to thank is Dr. Alicia Rodríguez Álvarez because of her confidence in me from the very beginning and for having supervised carefully the present research. She suggested me the study of punctuation given that it is a matter that has been somehow neglected and, as a result, I have realized I am definitely a keen punctuation researcher. In this sense, I would like to thank Dr. Trinidad Arcos Pereira for having given me the chance to be part of her research project as research personnel in training and for having supervised my previous research. Dr. María Esther Rodríguez Gil is one of the professors who taught me in the first year of the PhD programme and she was the one who transmitted me the love for the eighteenth century and for doing research, so I will never give enough thanks to her. Dr. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade has been one of the greatest professors I have ever met and, actually, her support and guidance have contributed invaluably to this thesis. I learnt and improved so much at Leiden University that I consider my stay in the Netherlands as the starting point of my research career. Besides, in this country I met different people among whom I want to name Cynthia Lange, Eduardo Correia and Sander Stolk since all of them have been great classmates and friends. Most importantly, I am grateful for the chats and the time we spent together. Furthermore, I want to give special thanks to Cynthia, to whom I am indebted for tips and comments about eighteenth-century punctuation. Thank you so much also to my friends Elena, Daniel and Fátima for their patience, love and kind words. They have given me strength when I really needed it even when I devoted little time to them. I must mention as well my cousin Manolito who has been interested in my studies and improvement since I was a child. Last, but not least, I want to thank my family, especially my parents, my sister Betsy and Julio for their support

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

and unconditional love. But, most of all, I am grateful for countless chats that cheered me up when writing this time-consuming research.

Beatriz del R. Medina Sánchez January, 2015

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... 1 Table of contents...... 3 List of tables ...... 7 List of figures ...... 8 List of charts and diagrams ...... 10 Abbreviations ...... 11

1. Introduction ...... 13

2. The eighteenth-century: the age of refinement ...... 19 2.1. Introduction ...... 19 2.2. The age of refinement ...... 19 2.3. Education in eighteenth-century England ...... 23 2.4. The English ‘grammar’ and the classical grammatical tradition...... 28 2.5. The eighteenth-century normative grammars ...... 33 2.5.1. Grammars from the first and second halves of the eighteenth century and the education of the rising middle-class ………………………………..39 2.6. The market for the ‘insecure’ ...... 43 2.7. Eighteenth-century grammarians and the growing concern with plagiarism ...... 46 2.8. Concluding remarks ...... 51

3. The evolution of punctuation ...... 53 3.1. Introduction ...... 53 3.2. What is punctuation? ...... 53 3.3. Punctuation conventions: the realignment of speech and writing ...... 55 3.4. Punctuation traditions: definition and contextualization ...... 58 3.4.1. Punctuation traditions: definition and classification ...... 58 3.4.2. Punctuation traditions: changes across time ...... 60 3.4.2.1. Old and Middle English punctuation traditions ...... 61 3.4.2.2. Early Modern English punctuation tradition ...... 63

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

3.4.2.3. Late Modern English punctuation tradition ...... 67 3.5. Punctuation systems: changes in the inventory of punctuation marks ...... 69 3.5.1. Old English inventory of punctuation marks ...... 70 3.5.2. Middle English inventory of punctuation marks ...... 72 3.5.3. Early Modern English inventory of punctuation marks ...... 75 3.5.4. Late Modern English inventory of punctuation marks...... 78 3.6. Concluding remarks ...... 81

4. The treatment of punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars ...... 83 4.1. Corpus and methodology ...... 83 4.2. Importance of punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars ...... 88 4.3. Approaches to punctuation ...... 92 4.3.1. The rhetorical and grammatical approaches ...... 94 4.3.1.1. Types of rhetorical explanations provided ...... 94 4.3.1.2. Types of grammatical explanations provided ...... 99 4.3.2. The rhetorical and grammatical approaches with a nod to sense...... 100 4.3.3. The hermeneutic approach to punctuation...... 101 4.3.4. The grammatical approach to punctuation ...... 102 4.3.5. The rhetorical approach to punctuation with a nod to sense ...... 102 4.3.6. No approach to punctuation ...... 103 4.3.7. Concluding remarks ...... 103 4.4. Punctuation: a rhetorical or a syntactic issue? ...... 104 4.4.1. Punctuation discussed in no specific section ...... 104 4.4.2. Punctuation discussed in two or three sections ...... 107 4.4.3. Punctuation discussed in syntactical and orthographical sections ..... 113 4.4.4. Punctuation discussed in rhetorical and prosodic sections ...... 118 4.4.5. Punctuation discussed in the form of appendix or supplement ...... 122 4.4.6. Punctuation discussed in ‘syllables’ and ‘letters’ ...... 124 4.4.7. Change of location of the punctuation discussion in later grammar editions ...... 128 4.4.8. Concluding remarks ...... 131 4.5. Systems of punctuation ...... 133 4.5.1. The most repeated systems of punctuation ...... 138 4.6. Function(s) of each punctuation mark ...... 140

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

4.6.1. Graphical matters ...... 141 4.6.2. Function and rules for the use of punctuation marks ...... 143 4.6.2.1. The comma ...... 143 4.6.2.2. The semicolon ...... 146 4.6.2.3. The colon ...... 147 4.6.2.4. The period ...... 149 4.6.2.5. The interrogation mark ...... 151 4.6.2.6. The exclamation mark ...... 151 4.6.2.7. The inverted exclamation mark ...... 152 4.6.2.8. The parenthesis ...... 153 4.6.2.9. Brackets ...... 153 4.6.2.10. Quotation marks ...... 154 4.6.2.11. The apostrophe ...... 154 4.6.2.12. The dash ...... 155 4.6.2.13. The hyphen ...... 156 4.6.2.14. The circumflex ...... 157 4.6.2.15. The dieresis ...... 157 4.6.2.16. The accent ...... 158 4.6.2.17. The breve ...... 158 4.6.2.18. The caret ...... 158 4.6.2.19. The brace(s) ...... 159 4.6.2.20. The paragraph ...... 160 4.6.2.21. The section ...... 161 4.6.2.22. The index or ‘pointing finger’ ...... 162 4.6.2.23. Notes of reference: asterisk, obelisk and parallels ...... 162 4.6.2.24. Several asterisks ...... 163 4.7. Generic terms ...... 163 4.7.1. Introduction...... 163 4.7.2. Function(s) of the generic terminology displayed in grammar books ...... 164 4.7.3. The etymology of the generic terminology as (un)conscious indicator of the author’s stance towards the English language ...... 168 4.7.4. Michael’s (1970) survey of the parts of speech correlated with systems of punctuation: Latin vs. vernacular models ...... 173

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

4.7.4.1. Michael’s (1970) most recurrent system(s) of parts of speech compared to the most recurrent systems of punctuation ...... 179 4.7.5. Concluding remarks ...... 184

5. Sources in the treatments of punctuation of eighteenth-century English grammars ...... 187 5.1. Sources of quotes and examples ...... 187 5.1.1. Concluding remarks ...... 202 5.2. Sources of punctuation theory ...... 202 5.2.1. Treatises or essays cited ...... 203 5.2.2. Grammars cited ...... 217 5.2.3. Dictionaries cited ...... 223 5.2.4. Concluding remarks ...... 228 5.3. Instances of plagiarism ...... 229 5.3.1. Concluding remarks ...... 238

6. Conclusions ...... 239 6.1. Overview ...... 239 6.2. Concluding remarks ...... 243

7. Appendices ...... 247 APPENDIX A. Classification of punctuation systems...... 248 APPENDIX B. Index of authors and systems of punctuation ...... 280 APPENDIX C. English grammars: a chronological list of the editions consulted per author ...... 282

8. References ...... 287 A. Primary sources ...... 287 B. Secondary sources...... 330 C. Corpora and online resources ...... 342

9. Resumen en español ...... 343

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

List of Tables

1. Comparison of Bailey (1721), Pocket (1753), Entick (1765), Buchanan (1767), Fenning (1767), Fisher (1773) and Ash (1775) in Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil (2006: 309) 2. Itemization of editions per decades 3. Itemization of 238 editions according to the mixture of approaches and the reference to ‘sense’ 4. Itemization of 238 editions according to individual approaches to punctuation 5. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in two or three sections and in no specific one 6. Summary of the authors who placed punctuation in two sections 7. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Syntax’, ‘Of sentences’, after ‘Sentences’ and ‘Orthography’ 8. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Quantity and Accent’, ‘rules for Reading and Speaking’, ‘Reading’ and ‘Prosody’ 9. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Supplement’, ‘Appendix’ and ‘Back Matter’ 10. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Syllables’ and ‘Letters’ 11. Itemization of grammar editions per decades 12. Total number of punctuation marks and the terms used to designate them 13. Summary of the authors who advocated either Germanic-rooted or Latin- rooted generic terms 14. Taxonomy of the 52 grammars in accordance with Michael’s systems of parts of speech as well as the systems of punctuation surveyed in the present study 15 and 16. Ash’s punctuation systems 17. Lowth’s punctuation system 18. Six supporters of Lowth’s (1762) system of punctuation

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

List of Figures

1. Evolution of the ‘pilcrow’ 2. Wilson’s (1769) introduction to his discussion on ‘grammar’ 3. Punctuation section in Corbet (1784: 30) 4. John Ash’s Grammatical Institutes (1761) 5. System No. 10 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 225) 6. System No. 36 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 258) 7. System No. 9 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 223) 8. System No. 4 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 218) 9. System No. 7 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 220) 10. Lowth (1762) 11. Webster (1784) 12. Ash (1785) 13. Lowth (1762) 14. Webster (1784) 15. Ash (1785) 16. Hodson (1800) 17. Fenning (1771) 18. Raine (1771) 19. Story (1783) 20. Lowth (1762) 21. Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781) 22. Webster (1784) 23. Ash (1785) 24. Hodson (1800) 25. Ash (1785) 26. Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) and Ash (1785) 27. Hodson (1800) 28. Fenning (1771) 29. Drelincourt’s Consolations quoted by Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792) 30. Johnson’s Preface (1755) 31. Johnson’s Preface (1775) 32. The Adventurer No. 6 (Saturday, November 25, 1752)

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

List of Figures (cont.)

33. Burrow (1768) 34. Burrow (1771) 35. Burrow (1772) 36. Bicknell’s (1790) acknowledged sources 37 and 38. Bicknell’s citation of Burrow (1772) 39. Mason’s Essay (1748) quoted in Crocker (1775) 40. Wright (1794) 41. Rhodes (1795) 42. Sheridan’s passage quoted by Rhodes (1795: 68-69) 43. Batteaux citation in Rhodes (1795) 44. Buchanan (1762: 49) 45. Bicknell (1790: 130) 46. Authors in accordance with the instances of plagiarism encountered

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

List of Charts and Diagrams

1. Sections and percentages 2. Overall trends of the generic terms points, stops, marks, characters and notes as well as the lack of generic terms encountered in eighteenth-century English grammars

Diagram 1. Taxonomy of generic terms in accordance with their etymology

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Abbreviations

A.D. Anno Domini (= in the year of our Lord) Anon. anonymous B.A. Bachelor of Arts B.C. before Christ c. circa cf. compare CHEL Cambridge History of the English Language ECCO Eighteenth-Century Collections Online ECEG Eighteenth-Century English Grammars database ed.(s.) edition(s) EEBO Early English Books Online e.g. exempli gratia (= for example) EModE Early Modern English (1500-1700) ibid. ibidem (= in the same place) i.e. id est (= that is) IGBs Intonation-Group-Boundaries LModE Late Modern English (1700-1900) M.A. Master of Arts No. number No p. no page Obs. obsolete ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online edition) OED Oxford English Dictionary (online edition) Ps. Psalms Sc. scene S.P.C.K. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge s.v. sub verbo (= see) v. verse vid. vide (= see) U.K. United Kingdom

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

1. Introduction

In Commas and Canaries: the role of punctuation in speech and writing, Naomi S. Baron notes that “[i]f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were a transition period in the relationship between spoken and written English, the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were times of polarization” (2000: 45). The study of eighteenth-century punctuation theory is the primary concern of the present thesis, especially its status at the time and how the rules of punctuation were codified in grammar books. Etymologically, ‘punctuation’ derives from the Latin word punctus (point). As a phenomenon of written language (Parkes, 1993: 1), the primary function of punctuation has been the recording of speech and, as such, punctuation has been subject to the spoken word. However, although speech and writing are different channels (Milroy and Milroy, 1999 [1985]: 54), punctuation can mark both simultaneously in a single text and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries English normative books focused on this duality so as to advocate the grammatical role of punctuation and hence the primacy of the writing system. There was in the course of time a shift from an ancient rhetorical to a logical- grammatical tradition, which was in effect the result of the enforcement of a standard variety of the English language through the written medium (Baron, 2000: 16; Milroy and Milroy, 1999 [1985]: 25). Despite the emphasis on “the logic of written sentences” (Baron, 2000: 19), there was also an interest in elocution among grammarians. Due to the economic growth and expansion of literacy in the eighteenth century, the rising middle-class was concerned with the development of educational skills, especially with the ability of speaking properly in public (Baron, 2000: 45-46). Consequently, the attention to elocutionary skills drew a dividing line between those authors who dealt with rhetorical punctuation in response to the growing interest in elocution and those who dealt with grammatical punctuation (Salmon, 1988: 295-296). The coexistence of these two traditions prompted disorder and chaos in most grammars as they included a section on punctuation but their authors were inconsistent in its placement and in their treatment of its function. Owing to authors’ inconsistencies, among other reasons, rules were codified in dictionaries, guides to style and composition, and

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

grammars in the standardization process of punctuation, though the gradual homogenization of punctuation marks was achieved by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century printers who therefore contributed to what is known as the “typographical” tradition (Little, 1984 in Baron, 2000: 23; Parkes, 1993: 51). The codification of English grammars was not restricted to the eighteenth century (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2008b: 1) since the first English grammar was published in 1586: William Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar. Though in the seventeenth century the publication of English grammars increased, their relevance in the eighteenth century is mirrored in the proliferation of dictionaries, guides on usage, letter-writing manuals and spelling books. In the first fifty years of the eighteenth century 41 grammars were published; in the last fifty years the number rose to 282 (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez Gil, 2013: 146). A grammar is “a book in which the technique (‘art’) of speaking and writing without errors is taught” (Vorlat, 2007: 504), and grammar is written in independent books or in sections included in dictionaries, encyclopedias, guides on usage and spelling books. Grammar as a school subject originated as one of the components of the medieval trivium alongside rhetoric and speech (Vorlat, 2007: 503). By taking a normative approach, grammars aimed at combining logic and rational arguments to make written standard English as homogeneous as possible whereby grammarians ruled out custom (usage) because of its alleged capricious nature (Görlach, 2001: 25-27). In so doing, grammarians resorted to other authors’ usages to exemplify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ English. For instance, when discussing the function of adjectives, Lowth (1762) stated that they are sometimes “employed as Adverbs; improperly, and not agreeably to the Genius of the English Language” (Lowth, 1762: 125-126; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010c: 85) and, as an illustration, he resorted to Addison’s usage of the adjective ‘suitable’: “As, [...] ‘I shall endeavour to live hereafter suitable to a man in my station.’ Addison, Spect. Nº 530” (ibid). On the contrary, Postlethwaite (1795: 44) advised readers to imitate the usage of intonation and cadence of “Dr. Porteus”, that is, “the present amiable Bishop of London”. Therefore, based on ‘reason’ (analogy), they attempted to proscribe ‘bad’ usage so that it is usually argued that some grammars took a prescriptive approach to language.1

1 For an overview of the ways by which normative grammarians arrived at their rules, see Baugh and Cable (1978 [1957]: 279-281). 14

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

It is in the contrast between approaches to grammar and, in particular, to punctuation that I am interested. In fact, the eighteenth-century grammars’ treatment of punctuation swings between the following poles, as discussed by Baron (2000: 45-50): written vs. oral, descriptive vs. prescriptive, rhetorical vs. grammatical, Latin vs. English. Punctuation might also swing between the poles of semantics vs. pragmatics since, on the one hand, perfect or imperfect sense is made explicit through syntactic relationships among the elements of the sentence and, on the other, punctuation is used to embody what a speaker does when he interacts with other speakers, that is, punctuation replaces the speaker’s prosodic devices that comprise the actual utterance and that vary with individuals such as intonation, breathing pauses and stress. The rhetorical tradition does not pay attention to syntactic structure but to rhythm, intonation and pauses. Being largely left to the reader, rhetorical punctuation leads to variable interpretations. In A Few Thoughts upon Pointing and Some Other Helps towards Perspicuity of Expression (1768), James Burrow states that every man uses punctuation differently especially as far as rhetorical punctuation is concerned. The reason he provides for this is that writers mark pauses in the text according to the way they speak; in many cases, however, the pauses are incorrect since not every man “pronounces with Accuracy and Propriety” (1768: 634). Burrow exemplifies the different interpretations a single text may have due to the variability of rhetorical punctuation with the following quotes: “Edouardum occidere noli: Timere bonum est” vs. “Edouardum occidere noli timere: bonum est” (1768: 636). In the former, it is recommended not to kill Edward; in the latter, Edward’s murder is recommended. Therefore, since rhetorical punctuation is invoked as a contribution to oral delivery, punctuation marks become “features of the ‘pragmatics’ of the written medium” (Parkes, 1993: 2). By contrast, the grammatical tradition marks grammatical structures and relationships in the text. Aimed at avoiding ambiguity, grammatical punctuation focuses on the clarification of semantic and structural uncertainties. That is the reason why grammatical punctuation might relate to semantics. For instance, in Elements of Elocution (1781) John Walker states that the sentence “[T]he passion for praise produces excellent effects in women of sense” (1781: 9) requires no pause between subject and verb and, therefore, requires no punctuation mark since it is a simple sentence. Nonetheless, though there are differing approaches to

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

punctuation ensuing from differing conventions, the ultimate goal of rules of punctuation has always been to assist the reader. In this thesis, I will focus on the study of punctuation as dealt with by eighteenth- century English grammars from both a diachronic and a synchronic perspective and I will do so by studying the treatment and the evolution of punctuation in accordance with the standardization process of the English language. In order to do so, I will compile a list of grammars from the online database Eighteenth Century Collections Online (henceforth ECCO) that will be my primary sources and for each book I will analyze the section devoted to punctuation. Given the general prescriptive approach to grammar at the time (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 275), I expect to find a non-descriptive treatment of punctuation. However, I also expect to find differing viewpoints of the primary function of punctuation marks on the grounds that there was no consensus on the primacy of one punctuation tradition. With regard to my primary sources, I will provide the author’s name and the grammar edition within parentheses like, for example, ‘Lowth (1762)’. Besides, I must say that I will also note the dissenting authorship of some grammars throughout my survey. That is, Eighteenth-Century English Grammars database (henceforth ECEG) provides data on the (generally-agreed) authorship of some grammars that have been labelled as anonymous in ECCO. Thus, for instance, the grammar categorized as ‘Anon. (1781)’ in ECCO will be referred to as ‘Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781)’ in the present study. Similarly, life-dates of the authors mentioned in the thesis will be provided between parentheses as well. In what follows, I will concentrate on the eighteenth century as the Age of Reason, of Correctness and, as I will argue below, of Refinement given the pursuit of standardization of the English language. In section 2.3 I will give an account of the eighteenth-century English educational system in order to discuss later, in section 2.4, the approach to the English language in the school curriculum. In section 2.5 I will explain why eighteenth-century grammarians formed a discourse community and, in doing so, I will discuss the written discourse practices they shared so that similarities and differences among grammars from the first and second halves of the eighteenth century will be dealt with. In section 2.6 I will also focus on the rising middle-class since such a class contributed to the growth of interest in normative grammars, guides on usage, dictionaries and letter-writing

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

manuals, among others. Finally, in section 2.7 I will account for plagiarism which was very common among eighteenth-century grammarians as a result of their shared discourse practices. Having contextualized the present thesis, I will deal with punctuation itself in Chapter 3. In section 3.2 I will explain, in the form of introduction, what punctuation is about. Thus, in section 3.3 I will focus on the eighteenth-century shift from the primacy of speech to the primacy of the writing system and the consequences on the treatment of punctuation. Once the different punctuation traditions have been explained in detail, I will offer an insight into the evolution of the punctuation traditions in section 3.4. Likewise, in section 3.5 I will provide an in-depth account of the variability of the systems of punctuation across time as far as the inventory of punctuation marks is concerned. In Chapter 4, to begin with, I will focus on the methodology I have used so as to analyze punctuation in eighteenth-century grammars. Then, in six different sections, I will deal with the results I have drawn from the analysis of my primary sources. In Chapter 5, throughout three different sections, I will deal with the acknowledged and unacknowledged sources of information that we have identified in the punctuation sections analyzed. Finally, in Chapter 6 I will summarize the present thesis with a conclusion. Then, Chapter 7 encompasses three different appendices, i.e., Appendices A, B and C, which are provided at the end. Appendix A, as a way of illustration, comprises the 71 systems of punctuation encountered in the present thesis together with the author(s) who supported each of them. Appendix B provides an index of all the authors who comprise the corpus besides the type of punctuation system ascribed to each of them. In Appendix C a different index is provided: a chronological list of the total amount of editions consulted per author.

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

2. The Eighteenth-Century: The Age of Refinement

2.1. Introduction This chapter aims at providing an overview of the eighteenth century as the period in which the pursuit of a standard variety of the English language affected the approach to language that grammarians took. Based on the example of Latin and Greek (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 279-281), rules were codified in normative works that came to function as the guidance on usage for the rising middle-class. Thus, those eager to acquire the ‘polite’ English variety had access to a wide variety of normative works such as English grammars, usage guides and letter- writing manuals, among others, in which grammar was discussed to a smaller or larger extent. The pursuit of a practical and functional English variety entailed the gradual rejection of Latin as the model language to which English had to conform up to the point that, in line with the complaints against the classical and unpractical educational policies, eighteenth-century authors, as also did their forerunners, reconsidered the aims and the usefulness of some English educational institutions.

2.2. The age of refinement In describing the attitudes toward the language in the eighteenth century, Baugh and Cable write in A History of the English Language: Now for the first time attention was turned to the grammar, and it was discovered that English had no grammar. At any rate its grammar was largely uncodified, unsystematized. The ancient languages had been reduced to rule; one knew what was right and what was wrong. But in English everything was uncertain (1978 [1957]: 254).

The late modern English period, and above all the eighteenth century, is often referred to as the ‘Age of Correctness’ or the ‘Age of Reason’. The eighteenth century is inevitably named the ‘Age of Correctness’ given the pursuit of the standardization of the English language. As noted in the above quotation, the English language lacked the systematization that the Latin and Greek languages had, so that grammarians of the English language aimed at codifying the language through the establishment of rules, identifying disputed usages and correcting common errors so as to improve the language (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 275). In fact, the word ascertainment summarizes the need for standardization.

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Swift’s Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue was a letter addressed to the Lord Treasurer of England in 1712 and it is a good example of the general concern about refining the language. Dr. Johnson (1709- 17842) defines ascertainment as ‘a settled rule; an established standard’ in his Dictionary (1755) and it is in this sense that Swift called for rendering the language certain (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 256). In order to support the proscriptions that the grammarians advocated, logic was invoked in this period, hence the term the ‘Age of Reason’. Besides, other approaches were deployed, like the application of etymology and the example of Latin and Greek (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 279). An instance of a logical approach is the mathematical principle behind the proscription against double negation; an instance of the etymological principle is found in the usage of averse from in preference to averse to; and, finally, one instance of the arguments that have been based on Latin and/or Greek is the differentiation between the uses of who and whom (Görlach, 2001: 25). Finally, the approach based on ‘Ipse dixit’ statements was widespread among grammarians during the eighteenth century as well. Arbitrarily enough, ‘Ipse dixit’ prescriptions and proscriptions were not supported by any scientific base (Beal, 2004: 115). The first half of the eighteenth century (or, according to Beal, 2004: 19, the period between the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries) is called the ‘Augustan Age’, an age characterized by “veneration of classical literature” (Beal, 2004: 19). In the light of the uncertainty that an uncodified language like English caused in many authors like Dryden (1631-1700), these authors leaned on the classical languages. Dryden translated his English writings into Latin or Greek so as to check that those were grammatically ‘correct’. Paradoxically, the eighteenth century was also concerned with the spread of linguistic conservatism that advocated plain English and the replacement of Latin words that obscured English writing. The same sort of linguistic conservatism was reflected in the reluctance to use loanwords (Beal, 2004: 19-20). In general, the eighteenth century was an age of refinement and, therefore, the ‘ideal’ standard language had to approach perfection (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 253-254).

2 Unless stated otherwise, I have taken the life-dates from the ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography). 20

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

The eighteenth century, especially the second half, marks the beginning of the prescription stage, the last of the seven stages in the standardization process of the language (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2008b: 6). This standardization process was not a “consciously monitored development” (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 286) so, as a result, it proceeded in fits and starts due to “competing local standards and conscious standard attempts” (ibid). Just for the sake of contextualization, I will briefly revise this process illustrating the different stages with landmarks in the history of the English language. The standardization process comprises, according to Milroy and Milroy (1999 [1985]), seven stages: selection, acceptance, diffusion, maintenance, elaboration of function, codification and prescription. In relation to the sevenfold classification by Milroy and Milroy (1999 [1985]), in the first stage, selection, a variety of the language is singled out as the ‘future’ standard language which normally coincides with the variety spoken in the most prosperous area in the country (1999 [1985]: 27); in the case of English, the Middle English dialect of the East Midlands. The second stage, acceptance, involves the adoption of this variety by the Chancery, i.e. “[…] the office responsible for the production of official documents issued by the king and the government” (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 275), and continuation of the variety that has been selected. At this stage, institutional support is essential in the standardization process (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 275-276). The third stage, diffusion, involved the spreading of the “written code that had been adopted” (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 276). For example, in the fifteenth century, through the official records of the Chancery the people who had been trained as clerks spread their writing system all over England (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 276-277). In the fourth stage, maintenance, the introduction of the printing press by William Caxton (ca. 1420- ca. 1492) in 1476 played a vital role. Since he decided to publish his books in the vernacular only, Caxton helped to maintain the variety that had already been selected and spread by the Chancery (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 277-278). The fifth stage, elaboration of function, coincides with the replacement of Latin by the English language as the language of learning. The sixth stage, codification, implies the creation and the laying down of ‘laws’ of the language so that the common user grasps the definitions and the rules of usage of

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

the items in dictionaries and grammars. Thus, dictionaries and grammars become “authoritative handbooks” (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 283) for the language speakers. Eventually, the prescription stage, the seventh stage, is basically the imposition of the rules of usage on the user. The last two stages, codification and prescription, are clearly entrenched in the eighteenth century since the pursuit of codification of the English language led to the proliferation of practical grammars and dictionaries of the language owing to the absence of an Academy, like the Académie Française, that would have ‘regulated’ the language (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 271; Barber, 1993: 203). The reasons why the idea for an English academy as proposed by people like Dryden and Swift (1667- 1745) (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 269-271) did not catch on during the eighteenth century were that many people realized that the language changed despite the proscriptions made by authoritative institutions like an academy, that is, the language ‘rules’ itself since it adopts and rules out usages over time.3 Besides, grammars and dictionaries were published in the meantime so that an academy became superfluous (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 268-269). Thus, as Hickey (2010: 3) argued, the linguistic concerns of eighteenth-century authors were similar to their predecessors’ but on the whole there was a “change in orientation”. Aside from being the ‘Age of Correctness’, the eighteenth century became the period of polarization (Baron, 2000: 45; Görlach, 2001: 18). During the standardization process of the English language, contested issues about points of usage led to another controversy: the proper criterion of correct usage since grammarians could opt for reason or custom. Custom, also referred to as usage, was frowned upon by authors as a proper criterion of correct usage owing to its alleged ‘capricious’ nature in contrast with reason, which meant ‘order’ (Görlach, 2001: 30). Some grammarians, like Lowth (1710-1787), did not trust usage as a real authority for correctness (Chapman, 2008: 33-34) since, as he stated: “[…] the general practice both of speaking and writing […] is chargeable with inaccuracy. It is not the Language, but the practice, that is in fault.” (Lowth, 1762: vi). Accordingly, those authors who favoured reason to the detriment of usage promoted a prescriptive approach. On the contrary, grammarians like Campbell

3 For a chronological account of the proposals for an English Academy made during two centuries see Monroe (1910). 22

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

(1719-1796), Priestley (1733-1804) and Walker (1732-1807) were interested in actual usage as the sole criterion for prescriptions: “use… is the sole mistress of the language. (…) In these matters, it is foolish to attempt to struggle against the stream” (Campbell, 1776: 336, 381, 344; quoted from Görlach, 2001: 28). The polarization between supporters of custom and supporters of reason led to disputes about usages among advocates of ‘correctness’, for there was neither real consensus nor clear criterion for grammarians’ prescriptions (Barber, 1993: 206). Despite the lack of clear criteria, the grammarians did share two aims: proscription of variable usages and prescription of the invariable ones (Baugh and Cable, 1978 [1957]: 277; Milroy and Milroy, 1999 [1985]: 22; Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 285), and these aims were fulfilled in the grammars. All in all, the pursuit of stability in language in the eighteenth century influenced the preference for plain and functional English.4 The next sections attempt at providing an account of the educational background in eighteenth-century England in order to understand the role that grammars, alongside usage guides and letter-writing manuals, played in the education of the rising middle-class as well as the factors involved in the grammars’ success in the market.

2.3. Education in eighteenth-century England According to Görlach (2001: 15), “[…] the subjects and the consequent stress laid on teaching the mother5 tongue […]” were the chief distinctions between two types of institution like the dissenting schools and private schools. The whole English educational system did not comprise only dissenting schools and academies as well as the private ones since it comprised grammar schools and charity ones as well. Besides, not only did universities play an important role in the educational system, but also led to contested issues. So as to gain insight into the ways in which the eighteenth-century normative works affected the rising middle-class, it is necessary to understand the differing educational policies of the foregoing institutions. Thus, we can grasp the rudiments that the different social classes were expected to acquire.

4 See Bailey (2010: 182-199). 5 The prompting of a mother-tongue education will be discussed separately under the subsequent section 2.4. 23

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Since education was restricted to the wealthier social classes, the lower classes could not afford to pay for their own education. As a response, charity schools were founded by the S.P.C.K. (the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge) in 16996 (Armtyage, 1964: 43). In accordance with the data provided by the Northampton Mercury, 21 April 1735, there were 1,329 charity schools all over England and they were attended by 19,506 boys and 3,915 girls in total (Cranfield, 1762: 185; quoted from Görlach, 2001: 15). In the light of these data, charity schools exerted a great influence on the eighteenth-century educational system. The importance of these institutions lies in the fact that the poor had access to a minimal schooling for free, i.e., they received rudimentary instructions on reading and writing thanks to endowments. The curriculum included other more practical instructions since charity schools were, basically and ultimately, job-oriented. Thus, within a charity school, the poor learned household chores like spinning, sewing, and knitting, for instance, and laboured-oriented works like gardening and ploughing (Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 108-109). With regard to women, they had access to primary schooling, as the above data provided by Görlach (2001) has shown, but they were denied the access to higher education. Since girls started their labouring life once finished their primary schooling (Gardiner, 1929: 319; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 122), they were instructed on elementary subjects framed within a domestic-oriented education (cf. Gardiner, 1929: 307; Goldsmith, 1979: 316). All in all, the poor were compelled to make their living. The poor were ‘given’ the opportunity to access schooling because of the efforts of given prominent reformers whose educational ideas revolutionized the system established so far. Priestley, as well as Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), Richard Edgeworth (1744-1817) and Josiah Wedgwood (1730-1795), among others, urged “‘effectual provision’ for teaching every child to read, write and cast accounts […]” (Simon, 1960: 35; emphasis added). Priestley and the others advocated the psychological theory of associationism, which provides the basic process of learning. According to this theory, every man’s mind is “the product of his circumstances” (Simon, 1960: 50) so much so that “[…] all children –all human beings, even the most ignorant savages– have the power of abstracting and generalizing; all, then, are capable of intellectual development through education”

6 According to Görlach (2001: 15), charity schools were established in 1697. 24

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

(Simon, 1960: 48). As Simon (ibid) argued, the theory of associationism was revolutionary in the sense that it opposed the former traditional view of man’s innate skills, which are insusceptible to education. Rooted in Descartes’ (1596- 1650)7, Hobbes’ (1588-1679), and Locke’s (1632-1704) materialist theories of knowledge (Simon, 1960: 45), the theory of associationism that educationists like Priestley advocated, prompted the view of education as the most vital means to change men’s nature. So, under the proper circumstances, men could do and achieve anything since their human abilities are endless (Simon, 1960: 50). In the face of these revolutionary ideas, many different members of wealthier social classes opined negatively on the instruction of the lower social classes and, thereby, on the charity schools on the basis that they would have less control over the poor people. As a way of illustration, Görlach (2001: 15-16) resorts to Mandeville’s Essay on Charity and Charity Schools (1723), in which it is stated that servants would claim higher wages if they are educated, to such an extent that they would not fulfil their duties. As far as women are concerned, the theory of associationism did not necessarily apply to them. In the eighteenth century, women were regarded as intellectually inferior to men (Hill, 1993: 44; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 119) so that the kind of instruction they received in private schools and academies was merely based on “ornamental accomplishments” like French, dancing, music and drawing besides reading, writing and elementary arithmetic (Hill, 1993: 45; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 120). Furthermore, home education was another alternative by means of which middle- and upper-class women were instructed only on classical languages, English and home tasks by mistresses. As a matter of fact, women were instructed for “a life at home” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000a: 342) or, in other words, for succeeding in the marriage market (Hill, 1993: 47; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 122). Those detractors of woman’s education considered that woman’s excessive learning compromised her feminity (Raftery, 1997: 17; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000a: 342) and, consequently, her success on the marriage market (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000a: 342). Fortunately, not all of the contemporaries did agree with the foregoing statement. Buchanan (1762), among others, pondered over the necessity of improving

7 Descartes’ life-dates were taken from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (online). 25

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

women’s education so, basically, his underlying statement was the aforementioned ‘associationistic’ idea that all human beings are capable of intellectual development: It is greatly to be lamented that the Fair Sex have been in general so shamefully neglected with regard to a proper English Education. Many of them, by the unthinking Part of the Males, are considered and treated rather as Dolls, than as intelligent social Beings. And though in Point of Genius they are not inferior to the other Sex, yet due Care is not always taken to cultivate their Understandings, to impress their Minds with solid Principles, and replenish them with useful Knowledge. (Buchanan, 1762: xxix).

Accordingly, Greenwood (1711), Loughton (1734) and Ussher (1785), among others, intended their grammars to both sexes on the grounds that the learning of English is essential (Ussher, 1785: vi; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b) or, grammar, in general, is vital to “[…] the Fair Sex whose Education perhaps, is too much neglected in this Particular” (Greenwood, 1711: A3v - A4r; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b). Interestingly, in line with the growing importance of women, Mackintosh (1797) included his two daughters in his preface when he signed it as: “Duncan Mackintosh and his two daughters” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b). As for grammar schools, children belonging to the middle and upper classes received a career-oriented education. The grammar school was an institution wherein children were instructed mainly in classical languages, i.e. Latin and Greek, thereby, according to Vorlat (2007: 502), children who were in the three lowest forms were “kept busy with William Lily’s Latin grammar” (Vorlat, 2007: 502). Such a classical instruction paved the way for becoming priests, clergymen or schoolmasters, or for accessing the university (Curtis, 1965 [1948]: 110). In line with the revolutionary theory of associationism, dissenters promulgated another far-reaching educational policy: the education must be useful and, as such, the curriculum must be broadened and changed. That is, the traditional grammatical curriculum did not cover other areas, not least history, geography, modern languages, science, mathematics, commerce, arts and technology (Simon, 1960: 27, 33). In a scientific-oriented education, the reorganization of the school system was required and, as a result, the dissenting academy became the most suitable institution where new subjects and methods were applied (Simon, 1960: 28; Hans, 1951: 15). Indeed, Hans (1951) argued that the intellectual and the utilitarian were two out of the three motives that led to the reformation of the

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

eighteenth-century educational system (Hans, 1951: 11) since the usefulness and application of science resulted in inventions which led to the Industrial revolution (Hans, 1951: 12-13). Among other outstanding men of the age, William Godwin (1756-1836) and John Wilkinson (1728-1808) studied in dissenting academies (Simon, 1960: 30). Indeed, having received a liberal education, those instructed in dissenting academies benefited from their own education and their industrial experience so that they were aware of the grammar-school shortcomings8 (Simon, 1960: 32). As a result, dissenters like Priestley, Wedgwood and Edgeworth, among others, rejected the traditional grammar school for their own children (Simon, 1960: 36). What is more, not only grammar schools but also universities like Oxford and Cambridge were criticized because of their bad reputation. Oxford and Cambridge had “become conventionalized and traditionalized. Instead of being places of learning they had degenerated to a large extent into a preserve for the idle and the rich” (Barnard, 1968 [1947]: 24). Even though poor students had access to both universities, in the eighteenth century undergraduates of noble birth outnumbered the ‘poor’ ones (ibid). What is more, upper-class undergraduates had not only the privilege “of wearing an embroidered gown of purple silk, and a college cap with a golden tassel” but also of being “excused from the examinations which led to a degree” (ibid). According to Barnard (ibid), both universities had made little advance since the Renaissance for, thanks to rich endowments, they ignored reforming opinions so many complained about the inefficiency of these universities (Simon, 1960: 30; Curtis, 1965 [1948]: 110). For instance, Barnard resorts to the following claim by Vicesimus Knox (1752-1821) who criticized Oxford University: “With respect to the state of morals, I firmly believe that in no department a worse state exists” (Barnard, 1968 [1947]: 25) and he ends up claiming for either its complete reformation or its desertion (ibid). Generally speaking, grammar schools and universities were considered to be monopolized by the Church of England (Hans, 1951: 15). In the face of these criticisms made by dissenters, the early dissenting academies were forced to move from one place to another (Simon, 1960: 32). So did catholic schools. Nonetheless, despite the obstacles, many men who were excluded from taking degrees at ancient universities, “founded and supported academies for the

8 Cf. Priestley’s An Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life (1768 ed.). 27

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

education of ministers to serve dissenting congregations” (Simon, 1960: 27). Likewise, private schools and private tuition became profitable alternatives for the upper classes since they offered a broad curriculum, like that of dissenting academies, that was adjustable to the student’s needs. From the academy stance, the advertisement of a broadened curriculum attracted the wealthier classes and, in fact, the prices became higher for them owing to the fact that the kind of education offered included subjects that were not the basic ones (Robinson, 1972: 195; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 115). As a matter of fact, private education offered the upper classes the possibility of opting for a general knowledge instead of a specialized one typical of the business-oriented curriculum (Simon, 1960: 28). All things considered, the reforming efforts made during the eighteenth century resulted in an improvement of the schools and curricula. Although the lower classes were instructed in a job-oriented base in contrast with the upper class’ career-oriented one, at least dissenters’ radical and scientific ideas paved the way for a liberal as well as a mother-tongue education or, in other words, a “[m]odern education” (Hans, 1951: 11).

2.4. The English ‘grammar’ and the classical grammatical tradition As discussed in section 2.3., classical languages were the core of the school curriculum in grammar schools. In the eighteenth century, English became an independent subject in some schools, being 1790 the date when the “strengthening of the subject and its extension to schools generally” took place (Michael, 1987: 382). In order to understand why English became a language refined and worthy of study, we must discuss the relevance of the school or “teaching” grammar, as Vorlat labels it (2007: 500). A “teaching grammar” is a book “in which the grammar of a language is explained to those who want to learn the language or improve their mastery in it” (ibid). Given that grammars were not only intended for use in schools, the label “teaching” grammar instead of “school” is preferable (ibid). When writing these teaching grammars, grammarians approached English as an autonomous language to the extent that Latin was gradually discarded as the model language. As Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006) discussed, Latin was the language to which early English grammarians primarily resorted in order to “provide them with a model, describing the grammar of English as if it

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

had eight parts of speech, three tenses, two moods and six persons” (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 284). It was thought that the Latin pattern was transferrable to any other language because of its alleged superior nature, hence its universality. That is, as Michael (2010 [1970]) argued, “[...] universal grammar was just a rationalization and extension of the prestige of Latin [...]” (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 493). As a result, English grammatical categories had to be adapted to the Latin ones (Vorlat, 2007: 507-508; Michael, 2010 [1970]: 492). Interestingly, the prestige of Latin was also reflected in the long-lasting use of Lily’s Latin grammar for 300 years as the only authorized grammar in grammar schools (Vorlat, 2007: 507). English was considered, besides, introductory to the Latin language since the former facilitated the comprehension of the latter (Vorlat, 2007: 502). As a way of illustration, consider Hewes (1621): In those also, or together with them, haue [sic] I here made an exact suruey [sic] (as the time hath yielded me) of the English Tongue, as the same use of all the parts of speech in Composition best conduce or accord with the Latines; and so haue I made as a posteriori the English tongue for those that are English, the first ground worke to the Latine” (Hewes, 1621: the preface; quoted from Rodríguez- Gil, 2002: 74).

Authors were aware of the differences existent between these two languages since Latin is rich in morphology whereas English is not. However, English is rich in syntax so much so that Lowth (1762), following the trend begun by Greenwood (1711), discussed syntax throughout sixty pages (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 284; Vorlat, 2007: 505). That is, authors realized that “English, without prepositions that govern ablatives and datives, with its invariable adjective and its limited inflexional morphology” (Vorlat, 2007: 505) had to be approached in syntactic terms. Thus, the syntactic criteria were deployed in English grammars whereby the English language was explained in terms of word order and word collocation. As a way of illustration, consider Fisher’s explanation of the noun: “As Names express Things without the Help of any other Word, you cannot put the Word Thing after them, without making Nonsense” (Fisher, 1754: 61; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 84). Therefore, authors realized that the Latin-based approach to English “[...] proved an ill-fitting straightjacket for the English language” (Vorlat, 2007: 508) and, consequently, they started to question the usefulness of a Latin schooling: “I think

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

it possible for a person to be a complete master of the English tongue without troubling himself with any other language whatever” (Fenning, 1771: vi; quoted from Vorlat, 2007: 503). The first author who considered that Latin was not applicable to English was Wallis (1616-1703) (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 284; Vorlat, 2007: 505-507): [...] They [Gill, Johnson and Hexham] all forced English too rigidly into the mould of Latin (a mistake which nearly everyone makes in descriptions of other modern languages too), giving many useless rules about the cases, genders and declensions of nouns, the tenses, moods and conjugations of verbs, the government of nouns and verbs, and other things of that kind, which have no bearing on our language, and which confuse and obscure matters instead of elucidating them. For this reason, I decided to employ a completely new method, which has its basis not, as is customary, in the structure of the Latin language but in the characteristic structure of our own. (Wallis, 1653, translation by Kemp, 1972: 109-111; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 77).

Though written in Latin, in his Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (1653), Wallis breaks with the Latin tradition by acknowledging characteristics peculiar to the English grammar (Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 284). For instance, Wallis (1653) denied the existence of English nominal cases (Vorlat, 2007: 509). The discovery of the differences between Latin and English was gradual and slow since the non-adoption of the Latin patterns entailed the ‘inferiority’ of English, as Vorlat (2007: 510) argues. Aside from Wallis (1653), Alexander Gill (1619) and the Port Royal Grammar (1660) (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 510-511) were the starting points for a movement of reform which broke with the Latin tradition so as to set a vernacular approach to grammar. As Michael argues, the movement of reform during the eighteenth century is rooted in Gill (1619) on the basis that he was the first author who advocated a threefold system of grammatical categories, including the particle, instead of the Latin eight-fold system. Moreover, the movement of reform is rooted in the Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée (1660) or the Port Royal Grammar which pursued a logical, non- ambiguous language for science, i.e. a universal grammar (Parkinson de Saz, 1980: 11-12; quoted from Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 82; Vorlat, 2007: 511). By means of the analysis of the grammatical categories set in grammars from the classical period to the eighteenth century, Michael (2010 [1970]) has traced the evolution and the changes that the English grammars have undergone. Broadly

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

speaking, eighteenth-century authors show a reforming attitude towards the English tradition in two respects: in their use of vernacular terminology and in their four-fold system of grammatical categories (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 509). By grammatical categories, I mean primary and secondary parts of speech. According to Michael’s English Grammatical Categories (2010 [1970]), grammars can be sorted according to the number of primary parts of speech as well as to the classification9 of primary and secondary parts of speech. A primary part of speech is “one which is included in a writer’s enumeration” (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 206) whereas a secondary part of speech is “one which is included within a primary category, either by name or by reference to its traditional content” (ibid). As a case in point, the noun is always considered as a primary part which, in the Latin approach, comprises both substantive and adjective as secondary parts (ibid). In his survey, Michael (2010 [1970]) found that grammars could be classified into four kinds of grammatical systems, i.e. (1) Latin systems, (2) modified systems before 1700, (3) vernacular systems and (4) modified systems after 1700. Out of these four kinds, the first was the most numerous with 203 grammars and 20 systems altogether. An example of Latin system is found in Wallis (1653). The Latin systems comprise the traditional system found in Lily’s grammar as well as other minor variations of it (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 210) so that they follow the classical model in opposition to the remaining kinds of grammatical systems. Moreover, the system comprising eight parts of speech was the most numerous (cf. Michael, 2010 [1970]: 214, System 1). The modified systems before 1700 are the less numerous with 11 grammars and four types of systems in total. The parts of speech range from one to eight parts of speech. As a case in point, system No. 21 comprises five primary parts of speech, i.e. noun (adjective including article), pronoun, verb (including participle), adverb (including preposition and interjection) and conjunction (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 236). The vernacular systems comprise 39 English grammars and 11 systems altogether. These systems

9 According to Michael (2010 [1970]), “[t]he relation between primary and secondary parts of speech is shown in three ways: (i) ‘including’ (incl.) is a relation between two customary parts of speech. When, for example, the substantive is said to include the pronoun this means that words like he and they are to be considered as a kind of substantive; (ii) ‘comprising’ (compr.) is a relation between a descriptive or ad hoc part of speech and several customary ones. The particle, for example, comprises a number of parts such as the preposition and conjunction; (iii) ‘with’ expresses the relation between article and substantive. The article is said to be ‘with’ the substantive when it is being treated as a ‘sign of a case’ or a vaguely logical appendage, and is often being excluded from the enumerated parts of speech” (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 210-211). 31

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

comprise exactly the same four-fold system of parts of speech, i.e. substantive, adjective, verb and particle, that the aforementioned reformers of the English language consciously advocated (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 210). As a matter of fact, the four-fold system advocated by the reformers “substantially anticipates the four word-classes of a modern structural grammarian” (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 516). Among the reforming authors, Fisher10 stood out as she epitomized the repudiation of Latin (Percy, 1994: 123; Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b). She claimed that “[m]ost of our English Grammars are so dependent on the Latin, that they appear only translations of them, introducing many needless perplexities; as superfluous cases, genders, moods, tenses, &c. peculiarities which our language is exempt from” (Fisher, 1756: vi; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b). Finally, the modified systems after 1700 comprise 22 grammars and 15 systems altogether. As far as primary parts of speech are concerned, the range of variation is high since they are neither repeated nor arranged alike so much so that Michael found “thoughtful attempts at reform” as well as “constructions of ignorance and eccentricity” (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 210). Although the authors who protested against the Latin-based approach to English shared the two aforementioned features, i.e. the vernacular terminology and the four-fold system of parts of speech, they did not consciously form a discourse community since, as I will discuss later under section 2.5., authors had a common enterprise but they did not share it. In any case, the complaints made by reforming authors were important for their contemporaries since authors like Wilson (1724) (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 514), Johnson (1755) and Ward (1765) (Rodríguez-Gil, 2002: 79-80) felt compelled to justify the inclusion of the Latinate eight-fold system of grammatical categories and the classical terminology into their works. As a way of illustration, consider Wilson’s complaint about the new trend towards the parts of speech: Have our Late Grammarians done well in reducing the Number to Four, and changing their Names? As Eight is a convenient Number, altho’ not strictly natural or necessary, yet had not better agree with our Latin and Greek

10 Despite her influence on the English grammatical tradition, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2000b) argues that Fisher was astonishingly excluded from the original list of English grammarians in Lexicon Grammaticorum, which traces the publication history of grammars. The reasons that editors provided were, on the one hand, lack of space, and on the other, that “Fisher is said to have been the first to introduce into English textbooks the idea of teaching by mistake… it would not be particularly flattering to women linguists to have her remembered as the person who introduced such a pernicious method of language-teaching!”. 32

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Grammars, and with our Nabors also, than change the present State of our Grammars without great Reason? (Michael, 2010 [1970]: 514).

Despite the proliferating criticisms against the Latin tradition, the influence of the Latin grammar on the English one did not disappear until the nineteenth century (Vorlat, 2007: 510), as shown in Michael (2010 [1970]). As a matter of fact, as discussed in Sundby et al. (1991), the three main topics discussed under the section ‘Syntax’ are: concord, government and word-order (Sundby et al., 1991: 7) so authors –especially the earlier ones– were influenced by the first two, which were typical of the Latin grammars (Vorlat, 2007: 505). That is the reason why the concept ‘grammar’ is indefinite. That is, as discussed by Sundby et al. (1991), the eighteenth-century grammar is a flexible tool that varied in size, contents and structure depending on the objectives and the target audience (Sundby et al., 1991: 4-5) but, in general, the standard textbook or teaching grammar, “begins with a chapter on sounds and spelling, proceeds with the parts of speech and syntax, and ends up with a list of improper expressions” (Sundby et al., 1991: 5). All in all, the new proposals to undertake a mother-tongue approach to the English language were discussed by authors from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. In the face of this confrontation, authors’ stances fluctuated from conservative to radical. For better or for worse, the Latin influence on English was not eradicated entirely. However, the importance of the vernacular system, as discussed by Michael (2010 [1970]), shows the growing success of the attempts made by the reforming grammarians. In the following section, the traits of the joint enterprise that English grammar writers formed are discussed further. Then, the written discourse practices associated with eighteenth-century normative grammars will be analyzed in detail.

2.5. The eighteenth-century normative grammars According to Buschmann-Göbels (2008), “[T]he eighteenth century is concerned with the education of a larger public” (Buschmann-Göbels, 2008: 100). In this century, the standardization of the prestigious variety of the language is not the only reason that explains the growth of interest in grammars. The need for guidance in the use of norms by the newly rising middle-class justifies this interest in normative grammars and hence the outburst of works published. During the eighteenth century, the number of grammars published surpassed the number

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

of previous centuries. As a matter of fact, from the 1750s onwards, 282 grammars were published in contrast with the 41 grammars that had been published during the first half of the century (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013: 146). Many grammars were published in London, but other centres such as Newcastle, Boston, Dublin and Edinburgh were also important in the course of the century (Beal, 2004: 90; see also Yáñez-Bouza, 2012). Those responsible for the success of normative grammars were the grammarians who had a kind of joint enterprise that tended to generate shared practices (Watts, 2008: 45). Grammar writers had the common enterprise of “being commercially successful by providing a means through which the ‘middling classes’ could acquire the (…) ‘polite language’” (Watts, 2008: 50). However, even though grammarians had a common enterprise, they did not share this enterprise. That is, grammarians generated written discourse practices that reflected common goals, interests and a certain degree of institutionalization11 as they provided similar examples and used similar terminology (cf. Rodríguez-Álvarez & Rodríguez-Gil, 2013) to the extent that plagiarism12 was common in eighteenth-century grammar writing (Watts, 2008: 50). With regard to the degree of institutionalization of grammarians’ written discourse practices, the discourse that was reproduced in grammars intertwined between that on politeness and on the ideology of the standard language (Watts, 2008: 50). As for their common goals and interests, grammarians were politically and ideologically motivated. Grammarians revealed the pursuit of stability in government and in society in their attempts to fix the language. Though Swift was not a grammarian, his proposal (1712), for instance, links the health of the language to that of the nation (Beal, 2004: 95). This notwithstanding, they did not share an enterprise not conformed a social or professional network since they were not mutually engaged with fellow grammar writers. In fact, grammarians did not work together but they were even in competition with one another (Watts, 2008: 54, 50). As a case in point, in a period of battles for dominating the market, Priestley (1761) suggested that his grammar had come out before the more popular one by Lowth’s (Tieken-Boon van Ostade,

11 Buschmann-Göbels (2008: 96), for instance, argues that Brightland and Gildon (1711), Greenwood (1711) and Maittaire (1712) form a particular discourse community since they “show a strong connection with each other, not only due to their dates of publication but also with regard to the common interest shared by the authors”. 12 See section 2.7. below. Later, in section 5.3. I analyze the instances of plagiarism I encountered in my corpus. 34

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

2008a: 104). As for their real professions, eighteenth-century grammar writers were not language experts since during the eighteenth century there were no experts for any fields and, to be specific, no linguists (Chapman, 2008: 21-22). Grammars were written mainly by clergymen and schoolmasters, like Joseph Priestley (Michael, 1970: 4; Chapman, 2008: 22). According to the data yielded by the ECEG database, 155 authors or the 82% of the authors whose occupation is known were related to the category ‘education’ and, among them, 140 were schoolmasters or teachers. To a lesser extent, the religious guild as well as the guilds related to ‘writing’ and ‘book production’, such as biographers, poets, translators, printers, booksellers, typographers, editors and the like, comprised the occupations of the remaining authors (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013: 152). The target audience of most grammars written by schoolmasters, i.e. 57% of the grammars, was either children or children and youth (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013: 157) so that most grammars were taught institutionally (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013: 158). According to Fitzmaurice (1998), schoolteachers used to publish simpler versions of a philosophical authoritative grammar, which she defines as “self-help grammars” (1998: 326). Carefully supplemented with readers, i.e. “anthologies of moral writing” (ibid), the so-called self-help grammars were designed for the schoolteacher’s own school or academy. Only a few grammars were targeted at adults and were suitable for private learning (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013: 157-158). Apart from grammarians, the popular press and booksellers played a crucial role in the creation of the market for the grammars (Buschmann-Göbels, 2008: 99; Percy, 2008: 125-142; Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2008a: 123-124). On the one hand, devoted to the review of literature (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 315), reviewers in periodicals like the Monthly Review and the Critical Review, formed a discourse community in which the discussion of grammatical mistakes and the praising or criticism of grammars to assess the market were typical (Percy, 2008: 125-142). Reviewers thus participated in the standardization of the English language since they looked for a good, authoritative grammar of the language and criticized grammatical errors that writers made (Percy, 2008: 137). As a result: [T]he popular periodical press consistently and enthusiastically supported the authority of the grammarians’ version of standard English. While this press provided some of the fuel for the grammarians’ judgments, they extended the

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

domain and influence of the prescriptive language through the literary review. (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 324).

On the other hand, booksellers embodied the key element in the codification of the language since some grammars like Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) were originally booksellers’ projects (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2008a: 104, 124). In spite of being a minority, women13 represented a new phenomenon as grammar writers during the eighteenth century. Grammar had always been considered a statusful, masculine subject and an element of the elite girl’s education (Percy, 2006: 112). According to Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2000b), the education of women became a matter of concern14 throughout the eighteenth century to such an extent that female writers, who strove for the education of their own sex, wrote elementary English grammars which constitute “a small if distinct subgenre, traditional in linguistic content, but almost uniformly illustrated with examples invoking a distinctly feminine world, limited and concrete” (Percy, 1994: 121). In total, fourteen new grammars were written by women during the eighteenth century (Percy, 2010: 38). Due to the growing importance of women’s education, the intended audience was almost exclusively feminine so that the female writer eventually had an audience and a community of “female models and peers” (Percy, 1994: 129). Among female grammar writers, Ellin Devis (1746-1820)15 and especially Ann Fisher (1719-1778)16 paved the way for the female teacher- grammarians who strove to educate young ladies and train other female teachers (Cajka, 2008: 191-192; Rodríguez-Gil, 2008: 149-176). The former’s constitutes the first grammar addressed only to young ladies whereas the latter’s was intended to both sexes (Percy, 1994: 123; 2010: 47). Devis’s grammar was recommended by Erasmus Darwin (1797: 16) and Mrs Eves (1800: xiii) as a good introduction to Lowth’s grammar (Percy, 1994: 124). What is more, the aforementioned periodicals the Critical Review and the Monthly Review praised Devis’s grammar

13 See Cajka (2003) and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010b). 14 According to Percy (2010: 45), not only Fisher (1750 [1745]) but also Newbery (1745) attributed “women’s ignorance to culture rather than nature” and, thereby, they encouraged potential purchasers to “[...] take responsibility”. 15 Because Ellin Devis does not have an entry in the ODNB, I have taken the life-dates from Cajka (2008). 16 For a comprehensive bio-bibliographical analysis of Ann Fisher, see Rodríguez-Gil (2002). 36

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

and recommended it for both sexes (Percy, 1994: 126). Fisher’s grammar17 was innovative in various respects: it was the first grammar which introduced exercises of false grammar, consisting of examples that needed to be corrected (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b; Vorlat, 2007: 504). In addition to her innovative use of native meta-language,18 Fisher was “the first to formulate the controversial rule for the use of sex-indefinite he” (ibid). That is, Fisher (1750) defined the pronoun he as: “The Masculine Person [that] answers to the general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person who knows what he says” (1750 [1745]: 117n; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000b). In view of the standards of grammar, which were “male-dominated” (Tieken- Boon van Ostade, 2000b), Fisher’s male stance in this respect highlights them (ibid). What is more, according to Percy (2010: 58), Fisher’s emphasis on “the potential equity of the sexes” contrasted with the English grammar of school curricula which “cultivated sexual and social difference”.19 Aside from Devis (1775) and Fisher (1750), five other female monograph grammars were written by Mrs M. C. Edwards (1796), Fenn (1798a), Gardiner (1799), Blanch Mercy (1799),20 and Mrs Eves (1800) (Percy, 1994: 122). In general, only two female writers wrote anonymously: Fenn used the pseudonyms “Mrs. Lovechild” and “Mrs. Teachwell” whereas Devis used “A Lady” instead of their own names (Percy, 1994: 123). In broad terms, most of them were professional schoolteachers who worked outside London (ibid). Among these female grammars, Fenn’s is relevant in two respects: it involved mothers in the teaching of their offspring and it provided them with methods and resources to fulfil this task (Cajka, 2003: 140; quoted from Percy, 2006: 111). The key role of women as teachers had already been advocated by Greenwood (1683?-1737) and Charles Gildon (c. 1665-1724) on the grounds that women raise their offspring

17 According to Rodríguez-Gil (2002), Fisher (1750 [1745]) was the fourth most popular grammar of the period so her importance is undeniable (quoted from Percy, 2010: 44). 18 Fisher adopted words like time instead of tense and helping Verb instead of auxiliary (Tieken- Boon van Ostade, 2000b). Her mother-tongue approach to the English language will be discussed further under the section 4.7. 19 In her comparison of women’s grammars to some written by men at the same time, Percy (2010) shows the differences in the pedagogical approaches to grammar taken by Devis and Fisher, among others. Unlike the latter, Devis did not include exercises of bad English in the first three editions of her grammar maybe because, pedagogically speaking, negative examples were unnecessary (Percy, 2010: 50). 20 Blanch Mercy is well-known for the abscence in her grammars of references to grammatical authorities and her rejection of the traditional method of memorization in favour of conversation (Percy, 2010: 54-55). 37

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

(Cohen, 1996: 30-31; quoted from Percy, 2006: 111) and, thus, “women’s natural roles as mothers made them essential targets for improvement” (Percy, 2010: 58). By exploiting women’s “natural talent for teaching” (Percy, 2006: 120), Fenn strengthened the personal and public importance of women in the sense that women had authority within and outside the domestic sphere. That is, the “domestic work of motherhood” (Percy, 2006: 127) includes not only home tasks but the teaching of her offspring so that a woman relays to her children “the cultural capital of literacy and grammar” (ibid). Therefore, all those women who wished to self-identify as good mothers resorted to Fenn’s grammars (Percy, 1994: 115). As for resources, women were provided with materials like games which “emphasized the conventional skills of parsing and error spotting” (Percy, 1994: 135) and the grammatical instruction through conversation replaced rote memorization (Percy, 1994: 136). By focusing on both girls and boys of different ages, Fenn’s (1785) games like The Figure Box, the Spelling Box and The Grammar Box helped children to learn grammar in a playful manner (Percy, 1994: 127). Moreover, through games, women embodied the domestic and cultural authority since they were capable of “wean[ing] boys and girls from demanding new toys ultimately to concentrating on grammar and books (and girls from toys to teaching little boys) […]” (Percy, 2006: 127). Although many female grammar writers deployed parallel sentences that contrast the male and female worlds like: “The king’s palace. A woman’s ornament” (Gardiner, 1799: 104; quoted from Percy, 1994: 133), contemporary gender stereotypes were reversed in Fenn’s grammars since “the child more in need of instruction is male” (Percy, 2006: 122). That is, in Lesson V within The Art of Teaching in Sport, Fenn uses the following representation of pupils: “JOHN reads” while “MARY works” (Percy, 2006: 122-123). Therefore, as Percy (2006) argued, “while females are consistently diligent, literate males are produced from exuberant ones” (Percy, 2006: 123). Aside from Fenn, these stereotypes’ reversal was also used by Sarah Trimmer (1741-1810) and Maria Edgeworth (1768-1849) (Percy, 2006: 124). In short, despite the innovative and revolutionary practices shared by female grammar writers, they advocated, by and large, “a conservative educational curricula” (Percy, 1994: 137) since none of these writers pursued the removal of women from the domestic sphere (ibid).

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

All things considered, so far I have discussed the shared practices of the joint enterprise that eighteenth-century grammarians had. In the next sub-section the shared written discourse practices of grammarians are discussed in greater detail so as to display the differences among grammars from the first and second halves of the eighteenth century.

2.5.1. Grammars from the first and second halves of the eighteenth century and the education of the rising middle-class Eighteenth-century grammars can be categorized into two broad groups according to the year of publication. Grammars published in the first half of the eighteenth century had different projects and purposes from those published in the second half of the century (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 317). Although the approach to the description of the English language was little different, a subtle difference between both broad groups of grammars is discernible. Early eighteenth-century grammarians discussed the English language in theory so much so that they “[…] appear to have no clearly developed methods for putting prescriptive ideals into practice […]” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 319). In his Essay, Greenwood (1711), for instance, was concerned with “an Account of the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue” (Greenwood, 1711: Dedication; quoted from Fitzmaurice, 1998: 319). That is, the teaching of correct English through the evaluation of proper and improper usages was not the main aim of earlier eighteenth-century grammarians and, accordingly, no judgments were provided (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 320). The lack of evaluative language in grammars published in the first half of the century opposes the increasing judgmental language in the outburst of grammars published in the second half. According to Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006: 284), Lowth’s Short Introduction to the English Language (1762)21 marks the beginning of the prescription stage owing to the fact that he provided, in the form of footnotes to its section devoted to syntax, a long inventory of grammatical errors made by either contemporary authors or authors whose language stood for the good usage. Therefore, with the advent of prescriptive grammar, the grammar of errors proliferated (Sundby et al., 1991: 1). Resulting from a prescriptive approach to language use (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a:

21 See Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s thourough analysis of Robert Lowth as an epitome of prescriptivism (2010d). 39

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

16), proscriptive comments increasingly appear in normative grammars to discuss the correct English language use. The importance of proscriptive comments in eighteenth-century grammars is such that the Dictionary compiled by Sundby et al. (1999) invaluably records all of those comments. The Dictionary compiles the expressions that are condemned or criticized in the sources and gathers them in 14 error categories (Sundby et al. 1999: 15-19). The usefulness of the Dictionary lies in its comprehensiveness of value judgments to the extent that “for each citation we have registered the grammarian’s evaluation, between 500 and 600 different prescriptive epithets in all” (Sundby et al. 1999: 38). The grammarians’ evaluative judgments were sorted into different dimensions like, among others, ‘territory’ (“peculiar to Scotland”), ‘social position’ (“low”), ‘linguistic competence’ (“adopted by the ignorant”) and ‘genre’ (“hardly allowable in poetry”) (ibid). According to Michael (1991), the grammatical rules that grammarians advocated were artificial since they were “contradicted by the everyday experience of the children to whom were taught” (Michael, 1991: 11; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 21). Despite the scant concordance between actual usage and language rule, grammarians constructed the ‘ideal’ language by resorting to the ‘best writers’ (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 323; Vorlat, 2007: 515; Hickey, 2010: 3). In this way, the theory was palpable in practice because proper and improper language usages were illustrated. For example, Buchanan (1767) and Lowth (1762) criticized Addison (1672-1719) and Pope (1688-1744), respectively. As for the former, Buchanan criticized Addison’s lack of concord in the following quotation: “It is requisite that the Language of an Heroic Poem should be both perspicuous and sublime: In proportion as either of these two Qualities are wanting, the Language is imperfect”. Then, Buchanan corrected and replaced Addison’s “are wanting” with “is wanting” (Buchanan, 1767: 85; quoted from Fitzmaurice, 1998: 323). With regard to the latter, Lowth (1762) also criticized the lack of concord in Pope’s “I am just now as well, as when you was here” on the grounds that the singular pronoun ‘you’ should not have been attached to the singular past tense ‘was’ but ‘were’ (Lowth, 1762: 49; quoted from Fitzmaurice, 1998: 323). Interestingly, grammarians did not strive to remove the alleged faulty writers from the canon since they used the latter as illustrations of both good and bad usage and style, instead (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 323). What is more, according to Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010a), one of the reasons why normative grammars

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

succeeded was the public mud (2010a: 19). However, authors contradicted each other since some of them created rules that opposed others’ (cf. Vorlat, 2007: 517). Consequently, despite the alleged pleasure that grammarians seemed to find in contradicting each other, English grammar writing had discredited itself by the end of the nineteenth century (Vorlat, 2007: 517). Anyway, ‘faulty’ writers were resorted to due to pedagogical reasons on the basis that the grammar had to provide the necessary guidance for those middle-class readers who pursued the correct English in order to progress socially. In fact, due to the notion of ‘correctness’ and, besides, ‘politeness’, eighteenth-century grammars are sorted into two broad groups as well. In search for contextualization, I will discuss briefly the backgrounds of the so- called ‘rising middle-class’. The eighteenth century underwent a change in audience which led to the publication of grammars. Many men and women, adults and children who lived in the capital and in the provinces became socially mobile because economic developments like the expansion of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution made it possible (Beal, 2004: 4-12). Before the emergence of industrialization in the late eighteenth century, the population largely lived in the countryside and work was not mechanized. However, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, working men and women moved from the rural areas to the newly flourishing industrial cities (Beal, 2004: 3-7). The prosperity that industrialization brought was manifested in the benefits that the new upwardly mobile society gained through money. The self-made men of the late eighteenth century could afford fashionable clothes, land, houses and a better education for their children. In fact, social climbing led to the spread of literacy (Beal, 2004: 93- 94). Given that common users had little knowledge of the split between prestigious and less-prestigious linguistic variants, some grammarians took advantage of the linguistic insecurity of social climbers to sell their books (Beal, 2004: 94; Hickey, 2010: 8-9). Such insecurity became a recognized problem and the solution provided by grammarians was the publication of prescriptive guides to ‘correct’ usage, which differed in their approach to ‘polite’ English. Grammars from the first half of the eighteenth century alongside periodicals like The Spectator approached the notion of ‘polite’ English differently so much so that there is a shift “[…] amply illustrated in the changing meaning and pragmatic functions of

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

the term ‘politeness’22 between 1711 and the 1770s” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 313). According to The Spectator’s approach to ‘politeness’, the readership was composed of people from all social classes to whom “the markers […] of good breeding, polite manners, good taste and polite conversation” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 311) were introduced. In fact, the amalgam of backgrounds was profitable for the periodical since The Spectator became extremely popular thanks to, among other reasons, the collaboration of the public.23 The periodical published letters written by the public, although in some cases they were altered and even completely fabricated (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 312), with the aim of addressing and responding to issues considered as “critical to the making of an entirely new, essentially middle- class reading public […]” (ibid). Thus, the notion of ‘politeness’ was “quintessentially pragmatic” (ibid). Implicitly, the periodical spread the idea that people from any social rank were capable of accessing the ‘polite’ society by means of acquiring its markers. As a result, the periodical fostered the ideology of social harmony which consisted in “amiable sociability” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 312- 313). According to Fitzmaurice (1998: 325), in the light of the needs of the rising middle-class, prescriptive grammars from the second half of the eighteenth century provided the necessary means to replace the traditional, classical education with a modern, English one in which “‘correctness’ in language begins to gain substance” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 320). Thus, authors like Lowth (1762) averred that only through linguistic correctness can politeness be attained (Lowth, 1762; quoted from Fitzmaurice, 1998: 316), thereby linking the normative grammar with social usefulness. In line with the social advancement, prescriptive grammars increasingly fostered the idea that impolite or ‘low-class’ language was “imprecise, old-fashioned, and casual” whereas standard English was “up-to-date, formal and correct” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 323). Generally speaking, the codification of the usage of the upper classes was the aim of grammarians, so standard English, which was related to prestige, became the variety to attain by social climbers (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 317; Watts, 2008: 50). However, instead of describing the language of the élite, grammarians, except for Lowth, described the

22 On the evolution of the term ‘politeness’ during the eighteenth century, see Nevalainen and Tissari (2010: 133-158). 23 See Fitzmaurice (2010). 42

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

usages that ought to be avoided. As a result, thanks to these prescriptive guides, readers would be able to avoid grammatical solecisms (Beal, 2004: 93) and, thereby, grammars of English became a profitable commodity. Educationally and socially biased, the nature of the English grammar in the second half of the eighteenth century changed the notion that ‘polite’ English represented in The Spectator. Facing the heterogeneous society, grammarians did not aim at instructing but assuming “the mantle of the judge and arbiter of correct and thus polite English” (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 310). In this way, politeness and taste helped to divide classes even further since both of them were marketed as commodities that could be bought by the insecure −even naive− rising middle-class (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 325). All in all, prescriptive grammars from the second half of the eighteenth century took advantage of the ‘linguistic insecurity’ resulting from the rise along the social ladder (Beal, 2004: 96). Instead of encouraging a social harmony, ‘polite’ English was the means to stratify society and, consequently, discriminate between its different levels (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 327).

2.6. The market for the ‘insecure’ Because of the need for practical education, usage guides alongside letter-writing manuals, among others, discussed grammatical issues. The first attested inclusion of an English grammar in dictionaries dates from 1735 in Dyche and Pardon’s A New General English Dictionary (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez Gil, 2013: 155). Henceforth, grammar was also included in encyclopedias like Seally’s The Lady’s Encyclopedia (1788), spelling books like Brown’s The English-School Reformed (1700) and letter-writing manuals like The Complete Letter-Writer (1755) (ibid). However, as far as letter-writing is concerned, the inclusion of grammar in eighteenth-century letter-writing manuals gradually disappeared in nineteenth- century ones since grammatical instructions were only given on punctuation and capitalization (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2008: 189). When discussing the main characteristics of usage guides, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010a) asserted that Baker’s Reflections is “[…] a product of its age” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 20). That is, though eighteenth-century usage- guide writers like Baker were concerned with disputed grammatical usages, their goals, interests and beliefs differed from those of eighteenth-century grammarians

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

since, as Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010a) argued: “The usage guide is a different phenomenon altogether, in that rather than focusing on actual grammar it aims to point out and correct linguistic errors and –increasingly− to offer the public some entertainment in the process” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 21). To begin with, although Baker’s Reflections is considered the first usage guide, it was not intended as such (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 20). In broad terms, usage-guide writers, who form a discourse community in themselves (Tieken- Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 19), are not necessarily language experts, but this did not prevent Baker, for example, from writing his Reflections: “Why should this incapacitate a Man for writing his Mother-tongue with Propriety’” (Baker, 1770: ii; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 17). Proscriptive comments to language use as well as the exposition of grammatical ‘offenders’, who were dead (Percy, 1997: 134; Vorlat, 2001: 398; both quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 19), are the main features of usage guides (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 16, 19). With regard to the former, based on the list in Sundby et al. (1991), Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010a: 16) traced an increase of proscriptive comments in Baker’s second edition of his Reflections with an overall figure of 312 comments in contrast with the 196 found in Baker’s first edition. This increase of proscriptive comments was due to the aforementioned predominance of the prescriptive approach to language during the second half of the eighteenth century. Besides, usually arranged miscellaneously, the grammatical items discussed in the usage guide constructed an artificial norm, as found in eighteenth-century grammars. Moreover, the grammatical issues were discussed humorously (Medina-Sánchez, in press). For instance, when complaining about the use of ‘came’ as a past participle, Baker concluded that “if we should bring them all [‘came’ and ‘went’ as in He is came and He has went] to conform to it, we should have a new Language” (Baker, 1770: 30-31; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010a: 21). As far as letter-writing manual is concerned, the importance of letter writing24 lies in the fact that letters are “speech on paper” (Penholder, 1896: 11; quoted from Fens-de Zeeuw, 2008: 189). Since both good conversation and letter writing became vivid eighteenth-century arts (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2008: 166), letter writing

24 See Marina Dossena and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.) (2008). 44

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

became a means to attest the writer’s familiarity with the standard forms of the language. That is, handwriting “can tell us something about the writer’s schooling and familiarity with writing” (Fairman, 2007: 173). As a case in point, Austin25 (1994) analyzed William Clift’s level of literacy and the effect that the exposure to standard English had in his written discourse through his letters. Having received rudimentary education in a Writing School, William Clift (1775-1849) moved to London where he was apprenticed to the surgeon and anatomist John Hunter (1728-1793) (Austin, 1994: 286-287). In his letters, Clift acknowledges his buying of novels like Fielding’s The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (1749) and Sterne’s The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (1759- 1767) among others, but no mention is given to his buying a grammar (Austin, 1994: 306-307). By analyzing some features of his written language, Austin (1994) argues that Clift adapted his language to the standard language, which was the language “of the educated élite of London” (Austin, 1994: 307) since “neither his speech nor his writing can have drawn attention to his humble origins” (ibid). Notwithstanding, unlike the social aspirations that surrounded the attainment of the ‘polite’ standard English, Austin (1994) averred that Clift attained standard English because of an intellectual driving force. Whatever the reason, Austin’s analysis of Clift’s correspondence verifies the relevance of private writing as a social practice (Nevalainen, 2004: 186) which contributes to better know the common language practices at that time. Private writing showed variation during the eighteenth century so much so that two spelling systems were discernible: a public and a private one (Osselton, 1963 and 1984; quoted from Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 290; Salmon, 2000: 15). In order to suppress variety, letter-writing manuals, among others, proved useful. As a matter of fact, letter-writing witnessed an outburst of publications during the eighteenth century due to the increasing interest in polite and correct English use (Görlach, 2001: 211; quoted from Fens-de Zeeuw, 2008: 165). As a medium through which the standard written norms are set, letter- writing is a written genre and, as such, it has to be learned (Nevalainen, 2004: 182). So as to attain the model advertised by letter-writing manuals, by and large, the composition of a proper letter entailed: “an elegant writing style, knowledge

25 See Austin (1991) The Clift Family Correspondence, 1792-1846. 45

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

of established conventions, as well as of how to use correct grammatical sentences” (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2008: 165). In order to provide guidance, eighteenth- century and nineteenth-century letter-writing manuals included sample letters (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2008: 174) and even recommended other guide-books, such as Fenning’s The Universal Spelling-Book (1756?) (ibid). All in all, the letter-writing manual, as well as the usage guide, was merely an instructional guide that spread the grammatical patterns already set in prescriptive grammars and, as a product of its age, it was born in the market for the ‘insecure’. In line with the growing book market, I devote the next section to discuss plagiarism which resulted from the written discourse practices of grammarians (see section 2.5).

2.7. Eighteenth-century grammarians and the growing concern with plagiarism According to Vorlat (1959: 125, quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 81), instances of plagiarism were very common among eighteenth-century grammarians since authors did not usually mention their sources. Aimed at improving on their predecessors’ works, many authors even copied “the same title of an already published work” (Hickey, 2010: 12) like William Kenrick (1784) who plagiarized Sheridan’s title Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language (1781) (ibid) and Blanche Mercy (1799, 1801) who plagiarized Lowth’s title Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) (Percy, 2010: 54). The obsession with plagiarism was such that authors were accused of plagiarism publicly. As a case in point, the polemic pamphlet Bellum Grammaticale (1712)26 compared three grammars: Brightland and Gildon (1711), Greenwood (1711) and Maittaire (1712). Originally devised as a bookseller’s project to launch the grammar by Brightland and Gildon (1711) in a battle for dominating the market, the author of the Bellum accused Greenwood (1711) of borrowing several parts from Wallis (1653) and Wilkins (1668) “without giving any indications of having quoted them other than in the preface” (Buschman-Göbels, 2008: 90), whereas Brightland and Gildon (1711), who “took over large passages from Wallis as well”, were not accused (ibid). The public concern with plagiarism may have resulted from “[t]he

26 For a full account of the reasons why Gildon is considered to be the author of the Bellum Grammaticale (1712), see Buschmann-Göbels (2008). 46

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

very understandable obsession with the copyright question which is the central issue in the history of the English book trade in the eighteenth century [...]” (Feather, 1985: 4). Given that London book traders considered free press as “an economic catastrophe for themselves” (Feather, 1985: 2) when printing was introduced into provincial towns, they called for the Licensing or Printing Act renewal.27 As Feather (1985: 2) argues, what the trade really wanted was a Copyright Act and, eventually, the first British copyright law called the “Statue of Anne” or Copyright Act was passed in 1709 (Feather, 1985: 74-76) which assured exclusive rights for copy-ownership to authors. As Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1996: 82) discusses, authors acknowledged their sources in different ways to the extent that we can find cases of plagiarism, unacknowledged copying, “interlingual plagiarism” and “customary appropriation” in eighteenth-century grammars. Plagiarism involves verbatim copying; unacknowledged copying is the reference to another author’s discussion on a topic in a way that seems to be “sufficient to indicate the source of what is to follow” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 83); “interlingual plagiarism” (Lafollete, 1992: 51; quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 82) is an unacknowledged translation; and “customary appropriation”28 (Michael, 1970: 316, quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 83) is the copying of other’s examples and the like. Ellenor Fenn’s publications, for instance, include instances of unacknowledged copying and “customary appropriation” according to Navest’s (2008) discussion on Fenn’s sources. As for the former, in Parsing Lessons for Elder Pupils (1798b) Fenn states that “Mr. Bullen calls these pronouns substantive; and remarks that, like other substantives, they declare their own meaning, without the help of any other word. [...]” (Fenn, 1798b: 47; quoted from Navest, 2008: 236). However, though Fenn borrowed more passages than those acknowledged in her works, she advised mothers to use Bullen’s (1797) grammar: Respecting Boys, a fresh difficulty arises to a Mother: she is apprehensive that the little volume which enables her to instruct her Daughter, may not accord with the Grammar which will be put into the hands of her little Son, at his entrance into School: but this difficulty is now happily removed, by the very recent appearance of a small Publication; namely, “Rudiments of English Grammar, for the Use of Schools:” its Author is the Rev. H.S.I. Bullen. (Fenn, 1798b: ix; quoted from Navest, 2008: 237).

27 The Printing Act expired in 1695 (Feather, 1985: 1). 28 In section 5.1. I discuss the instances of “customary appropriation” I have encountered in the corpus of this thesis. 47

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

As for “customary appropriation”, Cajka (2003) and Navest (2008) argue that Fenn based her examples and definitions on the ones used by Lowth (1762) and Ash (1760). For instance, Fenn’s example sentences in The Mother’s Grammar (1798a: 10, 33) were, among others, “John is loved”, “I love Mary” and “Mary is loved by me” which echo Lowth’s (1962: 96, 44) “Thomas is loved”, “I love Thomas” and “Thomas is loved by me” (Navest, 2008: 229). As shown in the example sentences, Fenn resorted to Lowth’s grammar and, instead of copying verbatim, she slightly modified the examples by changing the proper name. Though Fenn did not acknowledge her sources in this case, it must be noted that she praised Lowth’s work and even advised the readers to buy his grammar in the prefaces to The Female Guardian (1784) and The Child’s Grammar (1799). Greenwood (1711), as discussed above, was accused of plagiarism and, in view of his almost literal translations of Wallis (1653), we can argue that his translations are good examples of “interlingual plagiarism” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 82-83). Nonetheless, as Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1996: 83) has shown, Greenwood was “scrupulous enough to admit to the derivative nature of [his] work” and that is why he should not be condemned as “mere plagiarist” (ibid). The four different ways of acknowledging one’s sources are further reducible to two: plagiarism and unacknowledged copying. In order to distinguish the former from the latter we must pay attention to the author’s motives because, as Tieken- Boon van Ostade (1996: 85) argued, “[t]he desire to make money quickly and by any available means, including theft, seems to be important in distinguishing plagiarism from what has come to be referred to as unacknowledged copying”. Thus, authors who had “devious motives” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 83) copied deliberately since they were motivated by “a certain amount of wilful deception”. Therefore, they can be accused of “true plagiarism” (ibid). On the contrary, authors who acted “in good faith” normally admitted “to the derivative nature of their work” (ibid) and, unlike “true plagiarists”, they did not usually respond by counter-attack or denial (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 85) so they have committed “unacknowledged copying”. As a way of illustration, consider Kirkby (1746) and Murray (1795). As Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1996: 84) rightly showed, the former epitomizes the “true plagiarist” since he based part of his grammar on Fisher (1745 [1750]) to such an extent that he took from her various rules and the very title. The latter, though accused of “true plagiarism”,

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

epitomizes the “unacknowledged copyist” since he acknowledged in his later editions that his work was not original but a compilation and, in a way, he apologized (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 89-91). Besides, according to Fens- de Zeeuw (2011), it is likely that Murray “considered acknowledgment of his sources superfluous” because his grammar “was only to be studied by a handful of young Quaker women” from Trinity Lane School in York (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2011: 179, 181) to whom he addressed his compilation. What is more, Murray’s “good faith” is evident in his lack of commercial interest since, as his letters29 and his Memoirs (1826) attest, he “sold most of his copyrights for England to Longman & Rees in York” (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2011: 189) and then he donated the money to the owners of the aforesaid school together with an additional yearly amount of 46 pounds for about eight years (Fens-de Zeeuw, 2011: 179). Similarly, Ellenor Fenn did not need to earn money so “her labours were all gratuitous” as her obituary in the Gentleman’s Magazine stated (1813: 508; quoted from Navest, 2008: 242). As shown above, Greenwood (1711) as well as Murray (1795) acknowledged that their works were compilations and as such they felt compelled to rely on their predecessors’ works. Examples of eighteenth-century compilations were, among others, The Elementary Principles of English Grammar, Collected from Various Authors; but Chiefly from Dr. Priestley, and Printed for Private Use (1785) by M.A. and An English Grammar; Being a Compilation from the Works of such Grammarians as have Acquired the Approbation of the Public (1785) by Mennye (Navest, 2008: 234; emphasis added). In fact, with regard to dictionaries, Johnson also admitted that it is virtually impossible to write a dictionary without due regard to previous lexicographers on the grounds that “[...] [t]he roads of science are narrow, so that they who travel them must either follow or meet one another” (Johnson, Tuesday 14 May 1751, The Rambler, in Greene 1984: 215- 216; quoted from Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 296) or, as Fisher rightly argued, the lexicographer30 is basically a compiler who works with a common patrimony, that is, the lexicon (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 298). Paradoxically, it was Fisher who was accused of plagiarizing John Entick’s The New Spelling Dictionary (1765) in the first edition of her An

29 See Fens-de Zeeuw (2011). 30 See Riddell (1973-1974: 117-118), Shields (1973: 51), Monson (1991: 313) and Smith (1998: 439) (quoted from Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 288, 297). 49

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Accurate New Spelling Dictionary, and Expositor of the English Language (1773). By means of the analysis of Fisher’s unpublished draft prefaces and letters done by Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil (2006), some revealing conclusions have been drawn. According to Fisher, though she wrote solely the grammar prefixed to the dictionary, she agreed to add her name to the latter for commercial reasons (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 290). Therefore, she was not the compiler of the dictionary. Furthermore, thanks to Fisher’s words on the matter, Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil (2006: 294- 295) have shown that “[b]usiness and copyright benefits are [...] the clues that help us to understand the core of the matter” (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez- Gil, 2006: 294) since Fisher’s editor, G. Robinson, accused her of plagiarism to the Dillys31, publishers of Entick, after “their relationship had not ended on good terms” (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 294). Therefore, given that Robinson lost the copyright of Fisher’s dictionary, he acted out of resentment and, thus, he allied with the Dillys so as to eliminate a good competitor, namely Fisher, from the market (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 295). Most importantly, the comparison of the micro and macrostructures of Entick’s and Fisher’s32 dictionaries has shown that Fisher did not plagiarize. Actually, as Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil (2006: 299-301) discuss, both dictionaries differ in some macro-structural components since the number of parts of speech and the list of proper names for men and women included in tables were different. Moreover, Fisher added an extra section which listed the names of “classical gods, goddesses and heroes” (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 301). As for their microstructures, the comparison of 400 entries from Entick’s dictionary and 417 from Fisher’s has shown that the level of originality was very low because “68 words out of 417 (16.31%) appeared just in Fisher, whereas Entick contained 51 entries out of 400 (12.75%) which were not in Fisher” (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 302). The remaining entries shared identical definitions (152 entries in total) or slightly-modified ones (194 entries). Interestingly, a further comparison of 250 entry definitions from five other dictionaries, that is Bailey (1721), Pocket (1753), Buchanan (1757), Fenning (1767) and Ash (1775),

31 The Dillys published the grammar of John Ash (1760) as well (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2008a: 110; quoted from Percy, 2010: 49). 32 Given that the first edition of Fisher’s dictionary was never sold due to the injunction against her, Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil (2006) analyzed the 1773 edition. 50

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

have yielded clarifying results: the definitions were wholly or partially identical in all of them so the compilers relied heavily on each other (Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil, 2006: 307-311). As a result, as Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez- Gil (2006: 311) argue, though Fisher was not original, she followed the current practice. As an illustration, consider Table 1 below:

Table 1. Comparison of Bailey (1721), Pocket (1753), Entick (1765), Buchanan (1767), Fenning (1767), Fisher (1773) and Ash (1775) in Rodríguez-Álvarez and Rodríguez-Gil (2006: 309).

All in all, plagiarism was an extended albeit deplored practice in the eighteenth century but, as discussed so far, we must distinguish those authors who did not copy verbatim “in good faith” from those who, on the contrary, did not acknowledge their sources because of the very derivative nature of their works.

2.8. Concluding remarks The eighteenth century was the age of codification and prescription, i.e. two out of the seven stages of the standardization process. Aimed at fixing an invariable variety of the English language, codifiers approached the English language from the perspective of ‘reason’ to the expense of ‘usage’. Rules on English grammar were set in normative works like grammars, usage guides and letter-writing manuals so that the rising middle-class had access to standard English and, thereby, to the variety of the ‘elite’. So as to foster this variety, grammarians resorted to both the proscriptive language and to the public mud, which proved

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

successful in view of the reception of the books among the public. Nonetheless, the measures undertaken to educate the lower classes led to the stratification of society since the differences among the social classes were more conspicuous. In any case, attempts at establishing a practical and utilitarian education spread more than ever before. Many authors called for a change in the educational curriculum of grammar schools on the grounds that schooling on classical languages was outmoded and non-useful in the face of the growing importance of more scientific and practical curricula, like those set in dissenting academies. Besides, the efforts made by female authors like Fenn, Fisher or Devis, among others, to strive for the education of their sex, were noteworthy, as well. In line with the support of English as a school subject, grammars took different approaches to parts of speech. Latin had always been the only grammar taught at school and, as a result, grammars on the English language were biased by the Latin model. In this respect, Latin enjoyed the prestige that English lacked. However, thanks to many non-conformists like Wallis (1653), a movement of reform came into being. Far from being scant, grammar reformers aspired to set a mother-tongue approach to the English language and, as a result, a vernacular terminology and a four-fold system of parts of speech were advocated in opposition to the Latinate eightfold system. Notwithstanding, the reforming and the conservative approaches to the English language clashed so much so that an amalgam of systems of parts of speech can be seen in eighteenth-century normative grammars.

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

3. The Evolution of Punctuation

3.1. Introduction Being considered as a component of grammar, from the very beginning grammar books devoted some space to punctuation. Punctuation underwent changes in the function of punctuation marks owing to the coexistence of differing traditions of punctuation. The differences among the rhetorical, grammatical and hermeneutic traditions mainly lie in the function assigned to the written channel. That is, the written channel can be the medium for recording speech or it can be an independent medium for keeping durable records.

3.2. What is punctuation? Rooted in the Latin word punctus (Baron, 2000: 21), the term ‘punctuation’ or ‘to punctuate’ literally means “furnish with a point” (Zuidema, 1996: 135). Punctuation is a linguistic subsystem intrinsically connected with the written channel since it arose from the latter’s standardization although it has overlapping functions with the spoken channel as well (Nunberg, 1990: 7). In order to clarify these intricacies of the very nature of punctuation, I resort to the third volume of the Cambridge History of the English Language (henceforth CHEL). In the section devoted to orthography and punctuation, Salmon (2000) argues that a written form is considered an ‘ideograph’ when it represents a concept in itself or “it may represent the word which names the mental concept in an individual language” (Salmon, 2000: 13), so examples of an ideograph are Arabic numerals on the grounds that they represent “the same concept to speakers of different languages, but not the same word” (ibid). By contrast, when the written form represents the spoken one, we are dealing with either a ‘grapheme’ or a ‘logograph’ on the basis of its phonemic or logographic nature respectively. That is, in the case of the former, the symbol or element is a grapheme if the written form represents a phoneme in the spoken channel whereas, in the case of the latter, the symbol is a logograph if the word has to be taken as a whole because of the partial ‘fit’ between its graphemes and phonemes, like vale/veil (ibid). Taking Salmon’s discussion into account, I have found diverging stances towards the primary nature of punctuation marks since some authors like Nunberg (1990: 7)

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

avers that punctuation marks are not a representation of speech, thereby asserting that they are not phonemic, that is, punctuation marks are not graphemes but ideographs on the grounds that they do not have analogues in the spoken channel. In this sense, Nunberg (1990) considers that the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, capitalization, indentation, spacing, and the like are all graphical devices or “text-category indicators of written language” (Nunberg, 1990: 17) which are further categorized as genre-independent or genre-specific in accordance with the written genre under consideration (Nunberg, 1990: 17-18). An instance of genre-independent punctuation mark would be the comma on the grounds that its use is essential in any written text whereas footnotes are genre- specific on the grounds that their use might be linked with the writing of more specialized genres like the academic one (Nunberg, 1990: 18). Therefore, according to Nunberg’s viewpoint, overt pointing and other graphical devices that comprise the physical configuration of the text are unavailable in speech. In opposition, it has been argued that punctuation is linked with phonemic or, in particular, suprasegmental features like intonation, cadence or rhythm so much so that Chafe (1988) acknowledges the existence of a “written language prosody” (Chafe, 1988: 423). In other words, rhythms, pauses and intonations, among others, are the features of the covert prosody of the written text that punctuation marks make partially overt. A more eclectic stance is the one propounded by Cruttenden (1991) who discusses the existence of a “triangular relationship between punctuation, syntax and IGBs [Intonation-Group Boundaries]” (Cruttenden, 1991: 66). In his view, there must be a correlation between IGBs in speech and punctuation marks, not least the comma, in the written text since after having compared their occurrences, Cruttenden (1991) concluded that the comma prescription and the IGBs only differed in the following three cases: between subject and verb, between a non-clausal fronted direct or indirect object and in comparisons with ‘with’ (Cruttenden, 1991: 70). Thus, for instance, whereas the IGBs occur between subject and verb in speech, the comma usage is proscribed in writing. All things considered, punctuation –or ‘pointing’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Academic Edition)– basically encompasses all the marks that convey a certain kind of meaning which, according to Salmon (1962: 347-348), is not lexically expressed. Therefore, as Baron (2000: 16-17) claims, punctuation shows

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

evidence of the statuses of speech and writing as interdependent or independent channels to the extent that it can mark both channels in the same text. In the next section I discuss in depth the functions ascribed to the written channel throughout the history of the English language so as to gain insight into the evolution of punctuation as far as function and form are concerned.

3.3. Punctuation conventions: the realignment of speech and writing As Parkes stated, “[c]hanges in the signs [punctuation marks] are the signs of changes” (1993: 40). Owing to the evolution of the relationship between speech and writing, punctuation marks underwent changes as far as their shape, terminology and function are concerned. As Baron (2000: 18) argued, speech and writing are two linguistic representations –or channels (Milroy and Milroy, 1999: 54)– whose functions are often blurred. According to Nunberg (1990: 1), the written channel is the system of figural representation that differs from the spoken one in the circumstances of production, processing and social as well as communicative functions (Nunberg, 1990: 2). Despite the differences between both channels, only by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries can we see a greater independence of writing from speech as a linguistic representation (Baron, 2000: 15) since, diachronically speaking, the written text was used to record formal transactions, on the one hand, and to represent speech, on the other. Thus, both are summarized as the ‘recording’ and the ‘conversion’ functions respectively (Baron, 2000: 17-18). As for the conversion function of the written text, the written channel was not a channel in its own right since written texts were re-presented as oral productions. That is, the written channel was not independent but it was subject to the spoken since the former had to enable readers to represent the latter at a future time, hence the so-called conversion function of the written channel (Baron, 2000: 16- 17). The subordination of writing to speech was due to the fact that English society, influenced by the Roman and Greek cultures, was based on an oral culture (Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 96; Baron, 2000: 28-29). In fact, Danet and Bogoch (1992: 96-97) claim that from the fifth to the eleventh centuries English society was oral to the point that Anglo-Saxon written wills were full of oral residue as they had to be read aloud after they had been drafted. Therefore, the conversion function of the written text might coincide with the performativity of

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

the written will, that is, its secondary devices strengthen the act of bequeathing (Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 99). Among the secondary devices which show high degree of involvement of speakers, the authors highlight: use of witnesses, insertion of curses, binomial expressions, and inconsistency of tense (ibid). An instance in which the first two secondary devices are encountered was published by Robertson (1956 [1939], quoted from Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 100): And Archbishop Wulfhelm and all the bishops and abbots who were there assembled excommunicated from Christ… anyone who should ever undo this grant… He shall be cut off and hurled into the abyss of hell for ever without end. And all the people who stood by said ‘So be it, Amen, Amen’.

Likewise, after having surveyed fifteenth-century private deeds issued in the county of Durham, Rodríguez-Álvarez (2006) concluded that sound devices easily identified by the ear were widespread such as alliteration (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2006: 190). Alliterative constructions appeared in binomial expressions like “to have and to hold” (ibid) which provided a certain ceremonious cadence (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2006: 191). As a result, the oral residue was passed down from the Anglo-Saxon times to the Middle Ages. As for the recording function of the written text, writing was the means of recording durable transactions for the administration before the seventeenth century (Baron, 2000: 15) whereas the recording of literary works was a later development (Baron, 2000: 18). Although writing as a channel was firmly established by the eighth century (ibid), the production of durable records did not proliferate until after the Norman Conquest given the suspicion with which English society regarded such documents (Clanchy, 1987). In fact, administrative documents like written wills were not legally binding in England until the seventeenth century (Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 98). According to Clanchy (1987), through the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there was a gradual shift from memorizing things to writing them down and keeping records (1987: 3) so that, by the end of the thirteenth century, written documents such as charters and wills were widespread (1987: 36, 206) even though they still preserved many oral features (cf. Danet and Bogoch, 1992; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2006). Among the advantages ascribed to the recording function of the written channel, Danet and Bogoch (1992: 100) mention the existence of land grants in which the scribe explicitly asserted that the creation of the written text prevents “important matters from falling into oblivion”. All in all, during the Middle Ages both speech and

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

writing were realigned since the latter was not merely a representation of the former but it served the function of producing durable records. Therefore, writing becomes a channel in its own right. Thanks to the increasing production of written documents, the heritage of the English language to future generations was preserved and fostered (Parkes, 1993: 20) and, consequently, the literate public was promoted. Originally, the literate culture was restricted to clerics (Clanchy, 1987: 1; Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2006: 273) but, owing to the proliferation of written documents, literacy became widely institutionalized in the west during the Middle Ages (Stock, 1983: 18, quoted from Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 96; Clanchy, 1987: 1). It must be noted that the recording function of the written channel and the subsequent emergence of the English written culture were fostered not only by the outburst of written documents, but also by the growing importance of silent reading (Parkes, 1993: 21; Baron, 2000: 29). Any written text can be read aloud or silently. According to Chafe (1988), reading aloud is neither spoken nor written language but “both and neither at the same time” on the grounds that reading aloud converts written language into spoken language but, as he avers, “[w]e know written language when we hear it […]. People simply do not read aloud the way they talk” (1988: 405). In the case of the English language, up through the twelfth century, the oral re-production of the written text, i.e. reading aloud, remained the norm in England (Baron, 2000: 30).33 Nonetheless, there was a gradual tendency towards reading texts silently during the Middle Ages (Baron, 2000: 30). According to Parkes, Isidore of Seville was the precursor of silent reading.34 In his Etymologies (2006 [627?-630?]), Isidore stated that words convey information and that they are better understood through silent reading (Parkes, 1993: 21). In the early Middle Ages, only one monk read aloud the text to students, whereas during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries students listened to the monk while they followed along, “silently reading their own copies of the same text” (Baron, 2000: 30). This medieval transformation took place owing to the growth of universities and the redefinition of the medieval

33 See Esteban-Segura (2005). 34 St. Augustine’s wonderment that St. Ambrose read silently has been regarded as evidence of the uncommonness of reading texts silently (Baron, 2000: 29-30). However, it has also been argued that reading and writing silently were not unheard of, but they were the exception. Moreover, according to some scholars, St. Augustine was not amazed but upset since he wanted to know why St. Ambrose was reclusive (Burnyeat, 1997: 74-75). 57

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

library. That is, the growth of universities and “copy shops” led to the proliferation of available manuscripts which could be placed, for the first time, on open shelves in libraries and could be read on an opened-spaced library. In this way, books were no longer placed on closed chests and readers were not compelled to read in carrels (ibid). However, the growth of silent reading did not mean the suppression of oral reading. In fact, the presence of both sorts of reading led to the coexistence of two traditions in punctuation: rhetorical and grammatical, though Little (1984, quoted from Baron, 2000: 23) and Parkes (1993: 4) assert the existence of the typographical and hermeneutic traditions respectively, as well. In the next section, the definition of the foregoing punctuation traditions alongside a detailed discussion of their evolution across time is provided.

3.4. Punctuation traditions: definition and contextualization 3.4.1. Punctuation traditions: definition and classification When we read the definition of the word ‘punctuation’ in sources like the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) or the Encyclopaedia Britannica, we are immediately confronted to several functions that correspond to different punctuation traditions. According to the OED, the ‘punctuation’ entry has two different meanings which, in turn, are subdivided. The first of these meanings is out of use and it was based on music: 1.†a. Music. The action of marking the text of a psalm, etc., to indicate how it should be chanted; the particular way in which text has been thus marked.

Likewise, within the second meaning, the use of punctuation in reading or speaking is considered to be obsolete: 2.†b. In reading or speaking: the observance or articulation of appropriate pauses and phrasing, as indicated or as if indicated by punctuation in a text. Obs. [Emphasis added].

By contrast, it is stated that the use of punctuation is based on semantic-syntactic principles: 2.a. The practice, action or system of inserting points or other small marks into texts, in order to aid interpretation; division of text into sentences, clauses, etc., by means of such marks; (occas.) an instance of this. Also: these marks collectively. (Now the usual sense) [Emphasis added].

As shown, punctuation is no longer used to indicate musical notation nor pauses in reading. Therefore, we infer that punctuation had these functions in previous

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

centuries whereas nowadays it encompasses ‘points’ and ‘marks’ to indicate syntactical relations and sense units. Thus, punctuation has a function more related to the written medium. In this sense, the Encyclopaedia Britannica goes one step further: [T]he use of spacing, conventional signs, and certain typographical devices as aids to the understanding and correct reading, both silently and aloud, of handwritten and printed texts. [Emphasis added].

The definition of ‘punctuation’ provided by the Encyclopaedia Britannica makes reference not only to the clarification of the sense in texts but to the correct utterance of the text. Thus, through the analysis of these definitions, two differing traditions or schools of thought (Encyclopaedia Britannica) have been exposed so far: the rhetorical and the grammatical ones. Nonetheless, there are others like the hermeneutic and the typographical ones. With regard to rhetorical or elocutionary punctuation, as shown, the function of punctuation marks was to assist the reader in rendering the text orally given that punctuation originated in the Roman and Greek rhetorical traditions (Baron, 2000: 21). In broad terms, it has been claimed that current theories of some suprasegmental features like intonation and stress are indebted to the development of punctuation theory (Salmon, 1988: 287) in view of the fact that rhetorical punctuation was related to five features: breathing pauses, prosody, intonation, cadence and music. When reading a text aloud, the reader, above all, has to breathe so punctuation was considered to be a physiological device (Ong, 1944: 360). Punctuation also conveyed prosodic units, that is to say, intonation, hesitations and accents which are covert in the written text (vid. section 3.2.) so much so that punctuation marks became supplementary aids to the reader. That is, the orator’s intonation was responsible for the correct transmission of the meaning of the text (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998a: 123), hence the treatment of both the interrogation and the exclamation marks as “affections of the mind” since both of them had to be emphasized and uttered with a raised pitch in order to distinguish them from other statements of normal discourse (Salmon, 1988: 302, 306). Moreover, cadence was related to rhyme (Morgan, 1952: 163). Likewise, punctuation marks were paralleled to musical notes and the parallelism led to the borrowing of terminology like the term ‘crotchets’, meaning the quarter note in music, that was used to refer to square brackets (Salmon, 1988: 302) in the sense

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

that the duration of punctuation marks was measured in terms of musical figures. In fact, Salmon (1988) avers that sixteenth-century punctuation owes much to musical theory in view of the “dictum in relating the stops to musical notes of various lengths” (Salmon, 1988: 303). As for grammatical, logical or syntactical punctuation, punctuation marks indicated grammatical relationships among the elements of the sentence. Given that in the classical tradition the possibility of using punctuation marks as markers of grammatical units was unknown (Baron, 2000: 24), the grammatical function of punctuation was a later development. With regard to hermeneutic punctuation, which is a term adopted by Parkes (1993), the Humanists advocated heavily- punctuated texts on the grounds that punctuation is the guide to interpretation and, as such, punctuation must mark logical relationships and semantic nuances of the written text (Parkes, 1993: 4, 88; van den Berg, 1995: 6; Curbelo Tavío, 2002: 516). Consequently, the hermeneutic tradition highlighted exegesis by means of combining both rhetorical and grammatical punctuation systems. Basically, the Humanists sought to delineate the rhetorical and the syntactic structures of the sentence (Parkes, 1993: 88), though the former prevailed over the latter since the Humanists emphasized the importance of the persuasive function of the language (Ronberg, 1995: 55). Finally, intrinsically connected to the hermeneutic tradition is the typographical one. Based on the Humanists’ practices, printers created punctuation conventions that spread through printed texts so that the punctuation that texts displayed became the norm for later texts (Baron, 2000: 37). Once the different punctuation traditions have been defined, the diachronic discussion of each of them is necessary to comprehend the reasons why current views of punctuation, like those of the OED and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, have discarded the classical elocutionary tradition as the primary function of punctuation.

3.4.2. Punctuation traditions: changes across time According to some authors like Ong (1944: 360) and Rodríguez-Álvarez (1998a: 125), two attributes can be ascribed to the previous English punctuation system: it was elastic and eclectic. The punctuation system underwent modifications as far as the redefinition of its ultimate function and the inventory of punctuation marks is concerned. In the face of the gradual development of this system, the tendency

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

was to join the old tradition with the new and, accordingly, we can trace an evolution from the oldest punctuation system to the present-day one. Given that my main focus is on eighteenth-century punctuation, I shall discuss the evolution of punctuation from the Old English period to the end of the eighteenth century so that present-day conventions are not dealt with. In any case, for the purpose of this study, the importance lies in the way punctuation has come down to us, not in the way we use it nowadays.

3.4.2.1. Old and Middle English punctuation traditions The best description of Old English punctuation has been given by Mitchell (1980) who said: […] the three things which are certain about punctuation in manuscripts of Old English [are]: there is often not much of it; there is little agreement about its significance; it is not the punctuation of modern English or of modern German (Mitchell, 1980: 25).

Actually, as Mitchell (1980) argued, Old English punctuation conventions are not generally agreed on because the punctuation system displayed in manuscripts was not systematic (Mitchell, 1980: 397). Rather, it is agreed that Old English punctuation followed the patterns of Greek and Latin, i.e. the earlier Roman rhetorical usage (Baron, 2000: 16) since, based on Quintilian’s Instituto Oratoria, punctuation was solely used in writing as an aid to read the text aloud (Salmon, 1988: 302; Baron, 2000: 24). With regard to the Middle Ages, there was no fully established punctuation system either (Zeeman, 1956: 18; Salmon, 2000: 14). What is more, during this period there was no prescriptive usage of punctuation marks (Cruttenden, 1991: 55) and, consequently, medieval punctuation has been considered to be random and arbitrary (cf. Jenkinson, 1926). Some research on the topic has yielded interesting results since medieval punctuation has proven to be far from being random. That is, punctuation systems were numerous and varied from author to author but they were consistent within themselves (cf. Zeeman, 1956; Alonso- Almeida, 2002-2003; Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005; Esteban-Segura, 2005). In the light of the importance of Greek and Latin in the European medieval education, it is not surprising that Middle English punctuation continued to be primarily rhetorical (Baron, 2000: 19), hence its definition as “pawsynge in

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

redynge” in a school text of 1440 (Jonson, 1952: 208; quoted from Salmon, 2000: 28). However, by the Mid and Late Middle Ages, a move towards grammatical punctuation started to take place owing to the growing importance of silent reading, the conscious attempts by Irish scribes to produce eligible texts and the beginnings of standard orthography (Baron, 2000: 24, 31-34; Salmon, 2000: 15). As for silent reading, as discussed in section 3.3., Isidore of Seville pioneered the view of the written text as an independent mode of expression which had to be read silently. Therefore, punctuation was the means to make the grammatical structure of the written text eligible (Baron, 2000: 24). According to Parkes (1991, quoted from Baron, 2000: 33), in line with Isidore’s assertion, the Irish scribes in charge of making Latin texts eligible, produced a “grammar of legibility”. That is, seventh- and eighth-century monks introduced spaces between words, overt pointing and visual formatting of the text like the division of running text into columns and tables in order to comprehend Latin manuscripts since, among other features, Latin texts were written without spaces between words, i.e. scriptio continua (Baron, 2000: 31). Consequently, the monks’ attempts led to the growing use of syntactical punctuation marks in medieval times (Baron, 2000: 34). What is more, the establishment of the first printing press by William Caxton in 1476 meant that orthography and, in turn, punctuation underwent a process of standardization given that orthography as a system was regarded as a whole. In this way, ‘orthography’ could be treated as the superordinate term and ‘spelling’ and ‘punctuation’ as subordinates (Salmon, 2000: 54). Despite the increasing importance of the syntactical function of punctuation, the elocutionary one was not suppressed because the coexistence of a rhetorical and a grammatical tradition in punctuation was displayed in early English texts. As a case in point, the fifteenth-century manuscript analyzed by Calle-Martín and Miranda (2005) showed both grammatical and rhetorical punctuation patterns to the point that, although it was meant for silent reading, the punctuation system was prosodic in nature (Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005: 32, 42). That is why not only the reader –the addressee of silent reading− but also the hearer –the addressee of reading aloud− were equally important during the Late Middle Ages. Besides, the use of punctuation varied according to three parameters: text type, text’s ultimate function and degree of formality (Salmon, 2000: 43-44). Texts that were meant to be durable records, not least legal texts, displayed sparse

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

punctuation marks (Jenkinson, 1926: 153-154; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998b: 28; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1999: 14-16), like legal contracts (Baron, 2000: 36), whereas religious texts that were meant to be read aloud were heavily punctuated such as sermons and homilies (Baron, 2000: 35). All in all, the higher the degree of the text’s formality, the higher the frequency of punctuation marks displayed.

3.4.2.2. Early Modern English punctuation tradition According to Salmon (2000), three centuries, i.e. the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were the most important ones in the development of a standard orthography and punctuation in the English language (Salmon, 2000: 53). In this section, of the three centuries aforementioned, I shall focus on the first two which comprise the so-called Early Modern English Period (EModE). In the earlier part of the sixteenth century, punctuation was not an appealing topic in view of the scarcity of theoretical interest in it (Salmon, 2000: 21). From the mid-sixteenth century onwards, we find a trend reversal: the interest in punctuation was such that the standardization of punctuation marks, in vernacular printing, was achieved throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Nunberg, 1990: 10; Baron, 2000: 38). Demands for the standardization of the written page rose owing to the spread of literacy and of printed books (Baron, 2000: 38-39) so much so that punctuation patterns spread from earlier texts to subsequent ones (Baron, 2000: 37). Such spreading of punctuation patterns was made possible thanks to the centralization of punches for punctuation marks which were bought from continental printers (ibid). Furthermore, it is agreed that at the end of the first century of printing, the first grammatical punctuation system was devised (Baron, 2000: 25) given that printers advocated the use of punctuation for clarifying the written word (Baron, 2000: 42; Salmon, 2000: 40). In this way, printers acknowledged the non-rhetorical functions of punctuation (Baron, 2000: 25) and, thereby, they gave primacy to readers over hearers (Salmon, 2000: 40). In this sense, Saunders (1951) makes clear that “[…] printed books were relatively numerous and apt to encourage the habit of silent reading” (Saunders, 1951: 163). In spite of the fact that printing spread not only an author’s words but his fame, most authors were reluctant to publish their manuscripts in printed texts (Baron, 2000: 40; Salmon, 2000: 18). As a case in point, Saunders (1951) compares minor poets like Udall (1504-1556) with Court poets like Philip

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Sidney (1554-1586) to throw light on the reasons why print was frowned upon. According to Saunders (1951), for the minor poets the publication of their manuscripts in printed texts was an economic necessity since it was a good means of social advancement and security (Saunders, 1951: 141) to the extent that “the greater the publicity the better” (Saunders, 1951: 157).35 By contrast, Court poets had “no economic function to perform” (Saunders, 1951: 164) on the basis that they were poets of and for the Court: “Essentially, such poems [those of the Court poets] belonged to the social group for whom they were written (Saunders, 1951: 152). It must be noted that despite the efforts made by printers to standardize punctuation conventions, the punctuation displayed in private manuscripts and printed texts varied. Thus, in both text types the punctuation was largely syntactical but in manuscripts there was little punctuation (cf. the undated manuscript biography of Thomas Whythorne whose use of punctuation marks was solely based on commas and periods. Salmon, 2000: 31) whereas in printed texts there was a larger inventory of marks displayed. In the face of the problems that the variable use of punctuation caused, printers became the final arbiters of punctuation style, hence Little’s assertion of the existence of the typographical tradition of punctuation (1984, quoted from Baron, 2000: 23). Printers had to deal with the punctuation that authors used in texts to the extent that in many instances the authorial punctuation was changed. Authorial punctuation was a problem since many authors did not punctuate their texts consistently, that is, a single author made use of different pointing practices, making their texts difficult to understand, thereby printers were compelled to impose order (Baron, 2000: 50). However, the alteration of authorial punctuation in texts led to the confrontation of the printers’ goals: the goal of accessibility and the goal of authenticity (van den Berg, 1995: 2). In relation to the goal of accessibility, the text had to be intelligible for readers so that printers modified the authorial punctuation when the text was not felt to be ‘accessible’ to readers. As for the goal of authenticity, printers were compelled to respect authorial punctuation in order to preserve the text’s authenticity and originality. In any event, in the light of the idiosyncratic

35 For a detailed discussion of the justifications provided by the minor poets for their appearance in print, see Saunders (1951: 143-150). 64

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

punctuation displayed in manuscripts, printers “[…] had the last say” (Baron, 2000: 47; Salmon, 2000: 52). During the seventeenth century, more specifically in 1661, according to Salmon (2000: 50), nearly all present-day punctuation marks were known although they differed in form and function, to a small extent. Not only printers but also grammar writers were concerned with the primary function of punctuation marks in view of the increasing number of works devoted to the topic (Salmon, 1988: 285). In fact, two treatises on punctuation appeared: Lewis (1672) and Anon. (1680). What is more, thanks to the former, an important development in syntactic analysis was carried through since, according to Salmon (1988: 292), dependent clauses were clarified. Thus, Lewis (1672) related syntax to punctuation: “So many finite Verbs there are in any discourse, so many stops must be made, […] So many principal verbs, so many principal Points or Periods. So many depending Verbs, so many depending Points” (Lewis, 1672: Postcript). Therefore, punctuation marks were used to separate the members of the sentence (Salmon, 2000: 50). Besides, punctuation was defined in rhetorical terms. That is, as a result of the increasing interest in punctuation theory, we find, probably for the first time, intonation patterns associated with the interrogation mark, for instance (Salmon, 2000: 37). That is, Butler (1633) distinguished between two types of question: yes/no questions, on the one hand, and wh-questions, on the other, but he did not ascribe a different mark to each (ibid). According to Rodríguez-Álvarez (2010), Renaissance students and future playwrights learnt the function and use of punctuation marks “in handbooks written by schoolmasters who considered them essential for a successful composition, unambiguous interpretations and skilled reading” (Rodríguez- Álvarez, 2010: 37), consequently, the clarification of sense, which turned out to be the main aim to attain when writing a composition, led to the confrontation between readers and hearers. That is to say, according to Primus (2007): […] [T]here is a close correspondence between syntax and semantics, which is captured by the principle of compositionality: the meaning of a complex linguistic unit is determined by the meaning of its parts and the way they are formally connected to each other (Primus, 2007: 105).

Thus, seventeenth-century authors were aware of the link between the constructive parts of the sentence and their sense which had to be made clear by

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

means of punctuation. Therefore, a correct composition of the text as well as its correct oral delivery convey the proper understanding of the author’s intention so much so that reading and writing become “both sides of the same coin” (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 46). As a way of illustration, consider Butler (1634) who was conscious of the function of the period as “a point of perfect sens [sic], and perfect sentence: which, in the last woord [sic], falleth the tone of the voice below its ordinari [sic] tenour, with a long paus [sic]” (Butler, 1634: 58, quoted from Cruttenden, 1991: 58). As shown in section 3.4.1., the conveyance of the writer’s intention gave rise to the hermeneutic approach to punctuation. According to van den Berg (1995), the written text transmits the author’s personal ideas as well as the illusion of time “into the timeless space of written language” (van den Berg, 1995: 24) on the grounds that it is considered a body “in its own right, its materiality replacing that of the orators physical form” (van den Berg, 1995: 5). Despite the coalition of semantic, syntactical and rhetorical conventions that the hermeneutic tradition presented, this tradition was frowned upon. One of the drawbacks ascribed to this tradition was the emergence of ‘heavy’ punctuation, i.e. the excessive and often unnecessary inclusion of punctuation marks in the text, which was especially noticeable in plays since the text had to be moved from stage to page (van den Berg, 1995: 12; Paul, 2009: 393). Thus, punctuation acquired a performative function: “‘Punctuation’ […] is a remarkably efficient means of utilising the manipulability of the printed page to emphasise performed action” (Paul, 2009: 412). For instance, when editing Shakespeare’s plays, his first four editors applied different policies with regard to punctuation and, as a result, such plays displayed a high degree of inconsistency from the first to the latest editions (Paul, 2009: 392). When discussing the emendations undertaken by Rowe, Pope, Theobald and Capell to Shakespeare’s plays, Paul (2009) evidenced the different printers’ goals which they had in mind to the point that we infer that Rowe advocated the goal of accessibility whereas Theobald, the goal of authenticity (Paul, 2009: 406). That is, whereas the former attempted to make the text more “reader-friendly” (Paul, 2009: 394) by drawing upon modernized spelling and punctuation and dividing plays into acts, among other strategies; the latter, had a more “authorial orientation”, complaining about the former unnecessary additions made to the plays (Paul, 2009: 406). All in all, by virtue of the criticisms made to heavy

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

punctuation, we might infer that ‘heavy’ or, in this case, performative punctuation ‘ruined’ performance (Paul, 2009: 394) but, according to van den Berg (1995), ‘light’ punctuation is not a good alternative in plays on the grounds that it “blurs, if it does not entirely erase, many caesural effects” (van den Berg, 1995: 13).

3.4.2.3. Late Modern English punctuation tradition Of the two centuries that comprise Late Modern English (LModE), i.e. the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, I shall discuss the punctuation conventions encountered only in the former. During the eighteenth century an outburst of works dealing with punctuation was published in the form of treatises and sections within grammars, usage guides and letter-writing manuals, among others (Salmon, 2000: 47). Thus, eighteenth-century writers could have been expected to acquire punctuation in manuals dealing with the topic (Salmon, 1988: 288-289). The contribution of the foregoing works to the clarification of punctuation was decisive, hence my present survey, notwithstanding the ‘oddities’ that the use of ‘heavy’ punctuation produced in written texts (Encyclopaedia Britannica). During this century the grammatical tradition stands side by side with the rhetorical one (Honan, 1960: 94; Salmon, 1988: 300; Baron, 2000: 45) within the same grammar or treatise of punctuation. In this sense, it is noteworthy that, in the corpus of this thesis, the differing stances of rhetoricians and grammarians were only discussed by Lowth (1762) and briefly mentioned by Hodson (1800: 42). According to the former, having adopted the rhetorical distinctions or parts of a sentence, i.e. period, colon, semicolon and comma; grammarians ascribed the punctuation mark to each part of the sentence (1762: 156-158). As shown so far, the syntactical function of punctuation was advocated from the Early Modern period to the extent that schoolmasters, grammarians, lawyers and translators devised a punctuation system whose primary functions were semantic-syntactical (vid. Salmon, 1988). Hence their interests in syntactic issues like the distinction of relative clauses (Salmon, 1988: 293).36 As for rhetorical punctuation, the importance of speech in writing is epitomized in Tristram Shandy (1759-1767) since Sterne wrote: “Writing, when properly managed, (as you may be sure I think mine is) is but a different name for conversation” (Sterne, 1759: vol. II, chapter

36 A more detailed discussion of the syntactical developments made by eighteenth-century grammar writers will be dealt with in section 4.3. “Approaches to Punctuation”. 67

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

XI; quoted from Moss, 1981-1982: 179) so that writing represents the pauses and shifts of speech (Moss, 1981-1982: 179). According to Salmon (1988: 300-301) and Baron (2000: 45-46), the social climbing as well as the discussion of punctuation marks as pause indicators and intonation markers led to the proliferation of eighteenth-century rhetorical grammars. For instance, according to Lowth (1762), both the interrogation and the exclamation marks denote an elevation of the voice whereas the parenthesis marks a depression (Lowth, 1762: 172). All in all, Watts’ (1721) discussion of rhetorical punctuation is considered as marking the beginning of this sort of grammars and Steele’s (1775) essay on speech marks its end (Salmon, 1988: 301), and, among all of them, I must highlight Sheridan (1762) and Walker (1785) (Salmon, 2000: 48). With regard to punctuation treatises, those by Monteith (1704), Burrow (1771), Robertson (1785), Steel (1786) and Stackhouse (1800) were surveyed by Cynthia Lange (2013)37 as well as 23 letter-writing manuals and 37 usage guides by analyzing their metalanguage from a diachronic perspective. Lange (2013) concluded that the rhetorical and semantic-syntactical functions of punctuation were universally present in the five treatises of punctuation but, in line with the grammatical trend of the period, there was an emphasis on the syntactical function of punctuation. Thus, whereas Monteith (1704) deployed, above all, the words ‘meaning’ and ‘sense’ in his preface, thereby emphasizing the semantic/pragmatic function of punctuation, Stackhouse (1800), nearly a century later, deployed the words ‘rules’, ‘parsing’ and ‘grammar’, emphasizing the syntactical-structural function of punctuation (Lange, 2013: 19-20). Interestingly, after having analyzed the metalanguage of 23 eighteenth-century letter-writing manuals, Lange (2013) concluded that 86.96 percent of the manuals mentioned the rhetorical function of punctuation whereas just over half, i.e. 12 manuals, mentioned the semantic/pragmatic function (Lange, 2013: 24). So, in view of the general emphasis on grammar, these results were not expectable at all. Finally, as for usage guides from the eighteenth to the twenty-first centuries, the most frequently mentioned punctuation tradition was the syntactical with an overall 83.78 percent, i.e. 31 usage guides mentioned it. The semantic/pragmatic function was

37 Lange’s (2013) survey is entitled The Comma and its Commentary, Analyses of Normative Language in Eighteenth-Century Punctuation Treatises, which was carried out as her M.A. thesis at Leiden University. Her survey yields very interesting and complementary results to my present survey. 68

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

encountered in the 72.97 percent of the guides, i.e. 27 usage guides, whereas the rhetorical function was only present in the 35.14 percent, i.e. 13 usage guides. Thus, it is noticeable that the rhetorical function of punctuation was “making a comeback in current punctuation theory” (Lange, 2013: 30-31). All in all, despite the acceptance of both rhetorical and grammatical punctuation traditions, the grammatical or logical basis was considered preferable to the rhetorical one on the grounds that the former was easier to set by printers and it was not subject to the confusion rhetorical punctuation could cause (Baron, 2000: 50). Breathing pauses, for example, was one criterion supported by the rhetorical tradition to determine the use of punctuation marks, but every speaker pauses according to his necessities (Burrow, 1768: 636), so, as a result, misunderstandings could arise. As a way of illustration, Sterne’s punctuation was conceived of as ‘heavy’ or even ‘odd’ punctuation by virtue of its creativity and which could ‘puzzle’ the reader (vid. Moss, 1981-1982). Therefore, influenced by the standardization of the English language that suppressed variation in writing, printers gave supremacy to the grammatical function of punctuation (Baron, 2000: 25) since readers were enabled to identify more easily the relationships between the elements of the sentence and their functions in conveying the sense of the text (Parkes, 1993: 3). Having discussed the evolution of punctuation as far as punctuation traditions are concerned, in the next section I discuss the evolution of the inventory of punctuation marks in accordance with the above time spans.

3.5. Punctuation systems: changes in the inventory of punctuation marks The Western alphabetic languages share the same punctuation system though they can show differing usages according to local conventions (Nunberg, 1990: 10). As a case in point, consider the interrogation mark (?). Unlike the English language, the Spanish one makes use of this mark at both the end and the beginning of a question, though the symbol is reversed in the latter position, for instance: ¿Qué hora es? vs. What time is it? To understand the intricacies of the English punctuation system in particular, I resort to Baron (2000). In her diachronic analysis of English and American punctuation practices, Baron states that “[…] while thinking about punctuation, we need to consider both physical configuration of the text and overt pointing” (Baron, 2000: 21). According to the Encyclopaedia

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Britannica, the current punctuation system was complete by the seventeenth century and it includes three main components linked with the physical configuration of the text such as indentation, capitalization and blank space between words. Moreover, with regard to punctuation marks, four points or stops are enumerated: the full point/full stop or period, the colon, the semicolon and the comma; alongside six ‘others’, such as the parentheses, the exclamation and the interrogation marks, quotation marks, the hyphen and the apostrophe. Therefore, three inferences about punctuation can be drawn. First, punctuation systems evolved throughout centuries; second, earlier developments affected the inventory of marks and the configuration of the text itself (vid. section 3.4.2.1.); third, there are two distinct groups of punctuation marks. Throughout this last section, I shall focus on the elucidation of these three inferences.

3.5.1. Old English inventory of punctuation marks The first punctuation system was rendered by Aristophanes of Byzantium (257?- 180? B.C.) who devised a system based solely on three marks: comma, colon and periodus. The three of them indicated breathing pauses in oral delivery since the comma marked a short pause; the colon, a longer pause in a longer phrase and, the periodus, an even longer pause (Baron, 2000: 20-21). Their location varied as well because the colon was placed “after the bottom of the last letter” whereas the periodus, “after the top of the last letter” (Baron, 2000: 21). Throughout the early Christian era, Aristophanes’ punctuation system led to new symbols called positurae whose primary aim was to render the text orally and, at the same time, to indicate syntactical constructions (Baron, 2000: 35). The so-called positurae encompassed, in Latin terms, three punctuation marks: distinction or positura proper which was written above the line, media distinction or media positura, mora, submedia distinction which was written “somewhat above the line” (Ong, 1944: 350) and subdistinctio which was written on the line (ibid). Likewise, it is also stated that this three-term system comprised, in vernacular terms, what were called “small branch”, “full branch” and “period” (Salmon, 1988: 296). Although the primary function of the positurae was the correct distribution of speech pauses in the written text, the distinction was used to indicate a nexus between the main breathing pause and the sentence ending (Ong, 1944: 350). What is more, Jerome’s translation of The Bible in the fourth century A.D. displayed the system

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

of punctuation per cola et commata, i.e. by phrases, which “incorporated systematic visual groupings into the text itself” to the point that they were meaningful units rather than meter units (Saenger, 1982: 374; quoted from Baron, 2000: 32). Therefore, owing to the resemblance of the positurae to modern punctuation marks, it is said that subdistinctio, media distinctio and distinctio perfecta would represent the present-day comma, colon and full stop, respectively (ibid; Salmon, 1988: 296). Curiously, according to some research on the topic, during the Old English period, i.e. from the year 450 to 1150 (Baugh and Cable, 1978: 51), punctuation marks were different in form and in terminology. Esteban-Segura (2005) analyzed an eleventh-century manuscript written in Old English and she found 1,100 instances of the punctus (·), 126 of the punctus elevatus ( ) and 801 of the punctus versus (;). Interestingly, the punctus was used as the longest type of pause and, accordingly, it had macro-structural implications whereas the punctus elevatus, which was rooted in musical theory, (Baron, 2000: 22) and the punctus versus stood for lighter pauses accompanied with capitals and minuscules. Thus, these two punctuation marks were deployed at a micro-structural level (Esteban-Segura, 2005: 33). In broad terms, the three punctuation marks were used (Esteban- Segura, 2005: 42): - To mark the end of a sentence - To associate coordinate clauses - To introduce adverbial clauses - To introduce direct speech - To signal the coordination of phrases Among the other functions displayed by the three punctuation marks, I highlight the ones marked solely by the punctus versus and the punctus. With regard to the former, the punctus versus is the only punctuation mark that was used to introduce appositional phrases. With regard to the latter, the punctus was used to call attention to what followed, to mark off a vocative phrase and to circumscribe words (ibid). In view of these results, it could be argued that, as shown so far, the functions of punctuation marks were not standardized, hence their interchangeable functions. Furthermore, despite the syntactical divisions indicated by punctuation, the division of the text into paragraphs was scarce in early-English texts given that

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

the concept of textuality was at its earliest stage (Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 107), and, furthermore, orthography had not “crystallized” yet (Danet and Bogoch, 1992: 118).

3.5.2. Middle English inventory of punctuation marks According to Parkes (1993: 42-43), the inventory of medieval punctuation marks or positurae comprised five punctuation marks: litterae notabiliores, punctus (.), punctus interrogativus ( ), punctus elevatus ( ) and the virgule suspensiva ( / ). Litterae notabiliores were indicators of the beginning of a sentence (Baron, 2000: 22). Punctus was the most commonly-used mark since its functions ranged from indicating all kinds of pause to separate and introduce quotations. In fact, according to Calle-Martín and Miranda (2005), the functions of the punctus were threefold38 given that this punctuation mark appeared in sentence, clausal and phrasal level (Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005: 38) so that it could appear either in the middle or at the end of the sentence (Zeeman, 1956: 14; Baron, 2000: 22). Therefore, as Esteban-Segura (2005) asserted with regard to the Old-English punctus, the medieval one also marked macro-structural relations. Moreover, Jenkinson (1926) and Calle-Martín and Miranda (2005) argue that the punctus appeared in fifteenth-century treatises and legal texts to indicate abbreviation and numerals (Jenkinson, 1926: 154; Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005: 37). The punctus elevatus indicated medial pause in order to signal that the sense of the sentence is complete though, grammatically speaking, the sentence is not so, accordingly, the punctus elevatus was also used as a “direction for reading aloud” (Zeeman, 1956: 15) on the basis that it marked a raised pitch. The punctus interrogativus indicated the presence of a question (vid. Zeeman, 1956: 12). The virgule suspensiva literally means “a small rod or twig” which makes reference to the mark’s appearance (Zuidema, 1996: 135). This punctuation mark indicated a medial pause so, in view of the fact that the punctus was deployed to indicate any kind of pause, the punctus and the virgule were interchangeable (Parkes, 1993: 46). Despite the growing adoption of the modern comma, the virgule was not suppressed all of a sudden since both forms coexisted in Caxton’s printed texts. Interestingly, according to a small sample of texts analyzed by

38 See Rodríguez-Álvarez (1998b). 72

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Lange (2013) through EEBO39, Caxton used only the virgule in the texts he produced. Moreover, according to Zeeman’s analysis of a fifteenth-century manuscript, the virgule was also used to indicate that a word was broken at the end of the line (Zeeman, 1956: 12), a function also fulfilled by the double virgule (Salmon, 2000: 29) which may indicate as well the beginning of a new section (Parkes, 1993: 46). Thus, in the latter sense, the virgule, followed by a capital letter, marked a significant pause given that it was located at the end of the sentence (Zeeman, 1956: 13). Interestingly, among the medieval punctuation marks encountered, the virgule became the most variable one since it was doubled and annexed to the period, either thus (./) or (.//) (//.). The first variant, i.e. (./), was encountered by Jenkinson (1926), Rodríguez-Álvarez (1998b) and Calle- Martín and Miranda (2005), in their surveys of fifteenth-century texts. According to Arakelian (1975), (./) or perioslash, as he coined it, has a disjunctive nature given that it separates sense units which are semantically and syntactically independent (Arakelian, 1975: 617-618; quoted from Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005: 37). As a way of illustration, consider the following sample drawn from Rodríguez-Álvarez (1998b) in which the punctus and the virgule mark parenthetical constructions or interposition of adverbials: Whilke office of the Bailyery aforsaide / . and the endentours therofe made with all the condiciones appoyntmentes and effectes reherside in thayme / . was aftirwarde by the saide Sir davy frely resigned and annullide […] (Rodríguez- Álvarez, 1998b: 39).

Likewise, the doubled variant of the perioslash (.//) was encountered by Zeeman (1956) in a fifteenth-century religious manuscript in which it was, basically, a paragraph or sense-unit mark (Zeeman, 1956: 13) whereas Rodríguez-Álvarez (1998b) found the third variant (//.) in vernacular deeds. Aside from the set of five medieval punctuation marks, Parkes (1993) argues that two others, not least the simplex ductus or 7-shaped positura ( ) and the paragraphus variant (§), were found in specialized texts. The former was encountered in twelfth- and thirteenth-glossed books as indicator of the completion of a gloss whereas the latter was encountered in law texts as indicator of divisions in a text and in references (Parkes, 1993: 43). In fact, the paragraphus was found in legal texts like those surveyed by Jenkinson (1926).

39 Early English Books Online 73

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

What is more, the paragraphus adopted other forms like (¶) in the manuscripts surveyed by Zeeman (1956) and Calle-Martín and Miranda (2005). According to Baron (2000: 37), the paragraphus, the paragraph marker or ‘pilcrow’40 evolved from the early-Insular manuscript convention of beginning a new topic or capitulum with the letter “.K.”. Then, by the twelfth century, it was replaced by the “C” and a vertical line was added to indicate a littera notabilior so, in the end, the modified “C” was replaced by the paragraph marker. The following image41 illustrates this evolution:

Figure 1. Evolution of the ‘pilcrow’

The importance of the paragraphus mark (¶) was such that Calle-Martín and Miranda (2005: 33) encountered 189 instances in their analysis of a treatise on arithmetic. The paragraphus was colored in red or blue42 as well as in Zeeman (1956: 13) wherein it was followed by capital letter. Despite its location at the end of the sentence to indicate division, the paragraphus was also encountered in the middle in Morgan (1952: 162) as an emphatic sign which signalled a significant pause for breath. Unlike Parkes (1993), some authors have encountered other punctuation marks in medieval texts such as the colon (:) (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998b; Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005), the dash (―) (Jenkinson, 1926) and double hyphen (=) (Calle- Martín and Miranda, 2005) but they were not in common use. Among these three, Salmon (1988: 298) draws attention to the origin of the colon which was accounted by Clemoes (1952) in view of its uncertain function: Since both colon and period could be indicated by a single punctum in mediaeval English manuscripts, it became a habit of scribes to write the former with a following minuscule letter, the latter with a capital (Clemoes, 1952; quoted from Salmon, 1988: 298).

40 See Houston (2013: 3-23). 41 This image has been drawn from Wikimedia (online). 42 As for the use of red or blue ink, Baron (2000) states that red ink was used to indicate textual divisions (vid. Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005: 32) but, with the advent of the printing press, printers replaced it with square capitals, uncials and Caroline minuscule (Baron, 2000: 22). 74

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Curiously, in medieval treatises on reading aloud, like the one analyzed by Rodríguez-Álvarez (1998a), only three punctuation marks were accounted: the comma, the colon and the period (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998b: 124) which were indicators of sense units that had to be uttered in accordance with particular intonation patterns (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998b: 125). All things considered, we might infer that, whereas the paragraphus variants, the dash and the double hyphen appeared as uncommon punctuation marks in medieval manuscripts, the only ‘primary’ punctuation marks to be accounted for in medieval rhetorical texts were the period, the colon and the comma.

3.5.3. Early Modern English inventory of punctuation marks During the Early Modern period, the ultimate goal of printers was the standardization of punctuation marks which led to both the increase of punctuation marks and refinement of their functions (Parkes, 1993: 2). In this sense, the gradual standardization of punctuation marks is evidenced in the variable terms to designate the marks, and, accordingly, shapes of punctuation marks evolved as well (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 41). Aldus Manutius’ Orthographiae Ratio (1566) set the printer’s punctuation system that was based on grammatical rather than rhetorical principles (Baron, 2000: 25) and which comprised five punctuation marks: the colon, the comma, the period, the question mark and the semicolon (Baron, 2000: 42). According to Salmon (2000: 29); the comma, the colon and the period were not completely fixed during the first half of the sixteenth century since the marks varied in accordance with the type used (black letter or italic) in Caxton’s printing. However, according to Parkes (1993), the modern comma (,) replaced the virgule (/) in the 1520s, when Pynson and Copland introduced it in Roman type and black-letter type in 1521 and 1534, respectively (Salmon, 2000: 29). Beside the modern comma, the printing press redefined the question mark which evolved from the former punctus interrogativus ( ) to the modern question mark (?) in 1521 (Partridge, 1964: 124; quoted from Salmon, 2000: 29). As for the set of new punctuation marks devised by printers during the sixteenth century, the semicolon stands out. Though its origin is uncertain (Salmon, 2000: 29), the modern semicolon (;) was widely spread in the late sixteenth century, which is attested in the sixteenth-century handbooks surveyed by Rodríguez-

Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars

Álvarez (2010: 38). The semicolon was first recorded in Butler (1633), according to the OED, but it was already in print by 1537 in Richard Grafton’s print of Coverdale’s Bible (Salmon, 2000: 29). Widely used by 1580 (ibid), the semicolon’s nomenclature was doubtful in the light of the terms used such as comma-colon (Daines, 1640; quoted from Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 39), sub- distinction (Jonson, 1640; quoted from Salmon, 2000: 29), hemi-colon (Brooksbank, 1657; quoted from Salmon, 1988: 297) and sub-colon (Lewis, 1672; quoted from Salmon, 2000: 29). During the second half of the sixteenth century, Hart (1569) noted five punctuation marks: the apostrophe, the hyphen, square brackets, the dieresis and the exclamation mark (Salmon, 2000: 29), all of which were in frequent use thereafter except for square brackets (Hart’s notes) which were widespread after 1600 to enclose omitted material (Salmon, 2000: 30) and which were also termed parathesis by Butler (1633) (Salmon, 2000: 37). Similarly, round brackets or parentheses were mentioned in Wilson (1551) as the punctuation marks used to enclose quotations (Salmon, 2000: 29) but they were already in use since the fourteenth century. According to Baron (2000: 37) and Salmon (1988: 306), parentheses were re-defined by printers since they became a device related to eloquence, to emphasis and, thereby, they marked a depression of the voice. With regard to the apostrophe, it was introduced possibly from France (Salmon, 2000: 40) and its location in grammar was problematic since it could be located under the section ‘accents’, ‘syntax’ or in a separate one (Salmon, 2000: 23). Its function was simple: it had to signal the omission of a letter, but some authors used it to mark the genitive singular and all cases of the plural “for certain nouns where these endings would appear as a vowel followed by ” (Salmon, 2000: 40; Beal, 2010a: 58). Thus, the fifteenth-century form quenes could be represented like quen’s to signal both genitive singular and plural (Fries, 1927: 694; quoted from Beal, 2010a: 58). As for the hyphen, Zuidema (1996) argues that it was adapted from a compound meaning under one on the grounds that “[i]t originally described a curved line drawn under a compound to indicate that the words were to be sensed separately” (Zuidema, 1996: 136). As to the exclamation mark, as shown above, Manutius (1566) did not include the exclamation mark within the printers’ set of punctuation marks and deployed the point, the colon or the question mark in its stead. Consequently, Hart (1569), among others, advocated

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

the use of the exclamation mark in view of the differing intonation patterns of the exclamation and the interrogation (Salmon, 1988: 306). In fact, Shakespeare’s Folio of 1623 displayed ambiguity in the use of the exclamation and the interrogation marks, hence the printers’ interest in distinguishing both clearly (Salmon, 2000: 40). From the end of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century, printers devised the last punctuation marks so that, by 1660, present-day punctuation marks had been noted (Salmon, 2000: 38). Thus, quotation marks (“”), the caret (^), braces ({}), the asterisk (*), the obelisk (†) and the index (☞) (Sherman, 2005: 13) were laid down to clarify the text to the reader (Salmon, 2000: 41). Therefore, all these punctuation marks had their functions solely in the written text since they segmented a text into sections or signalled a relevant paragraph, among other graphical functions. One of the most peculiar punctuation marks was the index or ‘pointing finger’ which originated in Lyon in 1484 as a paragraph marker (Glaister’s Encyclopedia; quoted from Sherman, 2005: 4).43 Among the fifteen names ascribed to the index, Sherman (2005: 10) states that fist was a product of the printer’s slang whereas manicule was the original name which was rooted in Latin. Although the index had already been introduced in the printed text during the incunabula period, only in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was the index completely uniform in both form and function (Sherman, 2005: 13). That is, during the previous centuries, the index was used to perform four functions (Sherman, 2005: 14-15): to clarify the organization of the text, which was its primary function (cf. William Tynsdale, 1536; quoted from Sherman, 2005: 14-15); to signal passages of interest for the reader, which was its secondary function (cf. Taverner’s Bible, 1539; ibid); as an advertising strategy and, finally, to indicate that an authorial annotation had been added in the margin or elsewhere (cf. Mierdman, 1553; ibid). Due to its ‘gestural’ nature (Sherman, 2005: 19), it is not surprising that the index alongside the asterisk, performed, above all, the second function (Sherman, 2005: 17-18).44 In fact, asterisk is an adaptation of the Greek and Latin terms for ‘little star’, hence the link of the punctuation mark with its appearance (Zuidema, 1996: 135).45

~~43 See also Houston (2013: 166-185). 44 The treatment of the index in my corpus attests Sherman’s founding. See Chapter 4, section 4.6. 45 See also Houston (2013: 97-120). 77~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

As a result of the increased inventory of punctuation marks, the term ‘distinctions’, which was first glossed by Huloet (1552), included not only the punctuation marks linked with breathing pauses but also those purely scribal in Mulcaster (1582) (Salmon, 1988: 299, 2000: 37). As cases in point, consider the punctuation marks encountered in the sixteenth- and seventeenth- century schoolbooks surveyed by Rodríguez-Álvarez (2010) in which punctuation marks were sorted into ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’46 (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 41). However, despite the general acknowledged distinction between two groups of punctuation marks, the nomenclature was not completely fixed in view of the terms used like ‘secundary points’ [sic], ‘other distinctions’, ‘figures’, ‘notes’, ‘accidental’, ‘characters’ and ‘other marks’ (ibid). In line with this variable nomenclature, the function of the semicolon was still uncertain, hence its two variants that did not catch on: the semi-comma and the semi-period (Salmon, 1988: 299, 2000: 38). The semicomma was created to indicate that words do not follow grammatical order whereas the semiperiod was mentioned by Manutius in 1566 as an intermediate pause between colon and period which must be followed by a lower-case letter (Salmon, 1988: 298).

3.5.4. Late Modern English inventory of punctuation marks Broadly speaking, during the eighteenth century numerous attempts were made to standardize the functions of the punctuation marks that presented more uncertainty like the colon, the quotation marks and the apostrophe since it was generally agreed that punctuation marks had primarily semantic-syntactical functions. As far as the colon is concerned, its function was unclear since it was almost interchangeable with the semicolon. Thus, gradually, the colon was used to introduce lists or quotations (Salmon, 1988: 299, 2000: 50). With regard to the quotation marks, they replaced sixteenth-century colon or parentheses47 at the beginning of a quotation but their location varied since, initially, they were used only at the beginning of the quotation like in Shakespeare Folio of 1623 (Salmon,

46 For a full account of seventeenth-century functions of punctuation marks, see Salmon (1962). See also Cram (2003). 47 According to Baron (2000), the quotation marks were the printers’ response to the necessary replacement of red ink since text-internal quotations underlined in red had to be adapted to the new production medium which fostered humanist developments like the quotation marks (Baron, 2000: 37). 78

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

1988: 299, 2000: 41).48 However, throughout the seventeenth century, the quotation marks were repeated at the beginning of every line of the quotation (ibid). As to the apostrophe, its main function was arguable since it was generally conceived as the punctuation mark that signalled the genitive form of the noun but others –being Priestley (1761)49 its precursor– approved of its use with plural nouns (Salmon, 1988: 299, 2000: 48).50 The latter function led to nineteenth- and twentieth-century criticisms against the so-called ‘greengrocer’s apostrophe’51, which in Beal’s words, “has become one of the greatest bêtes noires of popular prescriptivism” (Beal, 2010a: 57). Finally, the dash was used to signal smaller or greater pauses to the extent that it became a visual or graphic feature in Sterne’s and Sarah Fielding’s novels as well as in Jane Austen’s letters. As Moss (1981- 1982: 199) stated in relation to Sterne’s Tristram Shandy (1759), dashes are “silent signifier[s]” on the grounds that they measure “[t]he space beyond words, the space taken up by ‘mind’, and the distances of association that can be traveled by any mind therein, Mrs. Shandy’s or our own” (Moss, 1981-1982: 197). In this sense, dashes are deployed in a hermeneutic style as in Sarah Fielding’s The Adventures of David Simple (1744). According to Barchas (1996: 633, 647), dashes are used increasingly in a kind of Richardsonian and Sterne’ styles as the story develops since Fielding “manipulates the dash to enhance, by means of graphic design, the meaning of her text in two, seemingly contradictory, ways: as visual symbols of conversation and of silence” (Barchas, 1996: 640) so that they are markers of spoken speech that convey “not only the auditory realism of the narrative, but also the speaker’s emotional state” (Barchas, 1996: 641). Thus, Fielding fills her novel with dashes of different lengths to indicate hesitations, interruptions and the like of direct speech (Barchas, 1996: 640) to the extent that her novel resembled conversation, as in:

48 See also Houston (2013: 187-209). 49 Given that Priestley (1761) did not have a section on punctuation and his discussion on the use(s) of the apostrophe was included within the general body of his grammar, such a discussion has not been taken into account in the present corpus. 50 In her analysis of Jane Austen’s letters, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2014) has shown that Austen had apostrophe problems like, for instance, in the spelling of names. Thanks to the analysis, it might be argued that Jane Austen“was somehow aware of the existence of a rule for the use of the apostrophe but that she had not quite internalised it herself [...]” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2014: 125). 51 See Beal (2010a) for a diachronic account of the treatment of the greengrocer’s apostrophe. 79

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~WHAT a Condition was I in―what could I think!– – – My Brother– – Dorimene– – Dumont– – – all seemed involved in one common Madness. (2: 195; quoted from Barchas, 1996: 640).~~

Similarly, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2014: 100) argues that the dash appears repeatedly in Jane Austen’s letters to such an extent that it “may be considered a typical feature of [her] writing style”. In fact, 5,376 dashes were found in Austen’s holograph letters, which would “come down to about 43.4 dashes per 1,000 words” (ibid). What is of interest, according to Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s (2014) findings, is that the dash serves different functions in the letters: it marks off quotations (2014: 101), punctuates important passages (ibid), introduces a new topic in the letter (2014: 102) and, most importantly, it marks silence, “thus enhancing the dramatic nature of the utterance” (ibid). Therefore, in line with Sterne and Fielding, Austen used the dash as marker of spoken speech in her letters which, basically, “aim to represent dialogue naturalistically” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2014: 101). Interestingly, although eighteenth-century grammar writers advocated the syntactical function of the dash, the rhetorical function was approved by authors like Fogg (1792-1796) who considered the dash to be an useful punctuation mark that could be doubled or tripled according to the author’s rhetorical needs (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184-185). All in all, according to Salmon (1988: 299, 2000: 50), the modern stated function of the dash was introduced in the 1730s.52 Besides, during the eighteenth century, some punctuation marks like the square brackets and the quotations marks still bore different names like crotchets and inverted commas respectively. Crotchet still coexisted with other terms like ‘brackets’ and ‘square brackets’ whereas the term inverted commas was also found throughout the eighteenth century, being first recorded in Jones (1701) (Salmon, 1988: 299, 2000: 41). All things considered, the printers’ set of primary and secondary punctuation marks was widespread during the eighteenth century and it was evidenced in Sterne’s Tristram Shandy (1759) given the presence of primary punctuation marks and secondary ones like the asterisk, the dash and the index or ‘pointing finger’ (Moss, 1981-1982: 199-200). The use of ‘heavy’ punctuation as well as the use of different nomenclature could justify the efforts made by eighteenth-century grammar writers to standardize punctuation.

~~52 See also Houston (2013: 145-166). 80~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

3.6. Concluding remarks Modern punctuation reflects the evolution of punctuation throughout the history of the English language. Rooted in the Latin and Greek traditions, punctuation marks comprised the so-called positurae, which was a reduced set of three punctuation marks, during the early beginnings of the punctuation theory. With the advent of printing and the increasing interest in the topic throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the number of punctuation marks increased to the extent that the positurae included two different groups of punctuation marks: those considered ‘primary’ like the comma, the colon, the semicolon and the period, and those considered ‘secondary’ which encompassed punctuation marks purely scribal. The creation of new punctuation marks resulted from the general attempts to standardize the printed text and, as a result, the functions of the punctuation marks were redefined. Owing to the growing importance of the written channel as record keeper, punctuation became a feature concomitant to the written text; thereby conventions on punctuation fluctuated in quest of consensus. That is, punctuation marks were used by printers on a grammatical basis so as to eschew chaotic punctuation usages and minimize misunderstandings that could have been originated otherwise if the rhetorical punctuation had prevailed. Nonetheless, the rhetorical function of punctuation marks was never suppressed.

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~4. The Treatment of Punctuation in Eighteenth-Century English Grammars~~

4.1. Corpus and methodology Grammars constitute the main sources of information about the status and the evolution of punctuation during the period concerned.53 In order to be able to analyze the status and the evolution of eighteenth-century punctuation in grammars, I compiled a corpus with the help of ECEG, an online electronic source compiled by Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil and published in 2010 (cf. Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013) which I have used as a framework for drawing up a list of the titles of grammars in which punctuation might be dealt with. Then I resorted to ECCO, which contains over 200,000 works published in the UK and elsewhere (ECCO: Home), to gain access to the relevant texts. The ECEG-database has revised Alston’s bibliography (1965-1970), which so far was considered the “main bibliographical source for eighteenth-century grammars” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade and van der Wurff 2009: 18) but which required updating. The relevance of ECEG lies in its provision of biographical and bibliographical information, so that it complements the material drawn from ECCO. Users can perform individual or combined searches to the extent that multiple searches can be performed according to nine fields: ‘year’, ‘edition’, ‘title’, ‘author’, ‘contents’, ‘imprint’, ‘editions’, ‘references’ and ‘comments’. What is more, save some fields, others allow further searches as, for instance, the field ‘author’ whereby users can perform searches according to the following sub- fields: ‘name’, ‘gender’, ‘occupation’, ‘details’, ‘place of birth’ and ‘biographical details’. Thus, in a multiple search, users can search for authors, for instance, whose occupation was related to religion and education in the field ‘occupation’ (cf. Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013). Comprising 323 titles of books by 275 authors the database includes not only titles of English grammars, but also titles of other sorts of books that contain a grammar, such as dictionaries (like Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language), treatises on language (like Wilson’s The Many Advantages of a Good Language to any Nation) and treatises on rhetoric/elocution (like Cattanach’s Elements of Pronunciation and Grammar),

~~53 There are also independent punctuation treatises which are not included in the present study.~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

letter-writing manuals (like Brown’s The New and Complete English Letter- Writer), spelling books (like Harland’s The English Spelling-Book), books of exercises (like Alderson’s English Grammatical Exercises), polyglot grammars (like Adam’s The Principles of Latin and English Grammar) and miscellaneous items (like Richards’ The Young Man's New Companion) that deal with, among others, history, literature and rhetoric. As it includes biographical and bibliographical information, ECEG provides data on three fields: the books in question (data on the target audience, price, physical description and so on), their references (data on holding libraries, for instance) and the authors (bio-data) (ECEG: Methodology). For my compilation of eighteenth-century English grammars, I only selected grammars and some miscellaneous works printed in the British Isles and America that explicitly name the word ‘grammar’ in the titles. Having used ECEG as a framework, I checked if the books were available in ECCO and found that, in total, the primary sources amounted to 290 editions of 106 grammars composed by 99 authors. Spanning the period from 1700 to 1800, the list of primary sources includes first and later editions. My interest in later editions is linked with the differing conceptions about the importance of punctuation. I have come across some first editions of grammars, such as Institutes of English Grammar (1777) by Ralph Harrison (1748-1810) and The Accidence; or First Rudiments of English Grammar (1775) by Ellin Devis, whose authors did not devote a section to punctuation while changing their minds in later editions. Interestingly, the opposite practice, that is, the inclusion of punctuation in first editions and its exclusion in further ones, is also found, an example of which is Webster’s A Grammatical Institute of the English Language (1785). Drawn up for the purpose of studying punctuation, my corpus of eighteenth- century grammars printed in the British Isles and America attempts to be a comprehensive collection in which grammars are categorized according to two precepts. Therefore, in the selection process, grammars are classified, firstly, according to the decade in which they were published; secondly, according to the question of whether they include punctuation or not. In my analysis of punctuation in 290 eighteenth-century English editions, I have traced an increase in the publication of grammars, as I have already mentioned in Chapter 2.3. (Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil, 2013: 146). During the first fifty

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

years, 30 editions of 14 grammars were published. In contrast, 260 editions of 92 grammars were published during the last fifty years. With regard to punctuation, 240 editions out of 290 dealt with the topic. Table 2 illustrates the progress in the publication of grammars per decade as well as the number of grammars that included or excluded punctuation. It must be noted that the grammar by Wright (1800) cannot be classified in Table 2 since the last twenty-eight pages of the grammar are badly scanned. Moreover, as for the classification of grammars according to the exclusion or inclusion of punctuation, the grammars by Greenwood (1744) and Shaw (1793) were included in the aforementioned table since they include punctuation; however, they cannot be further analyzed since some pages of both punctuation sections are unavailable. In sum, I will analyze 238 editions of 80 grammars written by 75 authors altogether.

~~Table 2. Itemization of editions per decades Decades 1700- 1710- 1720- 1730- 1740- 1750- 1760- 1770- 1780- 1790- Total 10 20 30- 40 50 60 70 80 90 1800~~

~~Grammars 1 7 3 8 11 12 41 55 60 91 289~~

~~Punctuation 0 7 3 8 10 11 35 41 47 78 240 included~~

~~Punctuation 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 14 13 13 49 excluded~~

With regard to the treatment of punctuation in the items of my corpus, each grammar is analyzed on the basis of eight criteria. The first five criteria, i.e. the importance of punctuation, the approach to punctuation, the system of punctuation, the function of each punctuation mark and the generic terms used to name punctuation marks, refer to the treatment of punctuation itself, whereas the last three, i.e. the book section wherein punctuation is located, the acknowledged use of sources of both the punctuation examples and the punctuation theory, and instances of plagiarism, encompass aspects like layout and the use of sources in general. It must be clarified that the last two criteria, i.e. the acknowledged use of the aforesaid sources and instances of plagiarism were analyzed only in first editions of grammars. To give an example, in 1753, Fisher advocated a combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches so as to avoid misconstructions, hence the importance of the right use of punctuation marks. In

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

her view, the system of punctuation consists of 24 punctuation marks divided into two broad groups that are termed stops and marks. As a case in point, with regard to stops, at the comma, the reader must stop whilst he counts one and, grammatically speaking, the comma has five functions, e.g. it separates every figure of numbers. Fisher placed her six pages on punctuation in the orthographical section unlike, for instance, Loughton (1749), who placed his six pages on punctuation in the syntactic section. Moreover, Fisher acknowledged her use of secondary sources like Chambers’ Dictionary (1728) and quoted a passage from Drelincourt’s Christians Consolations (1724) as an example that illustrates her theories. Book section is relevant since, according to Vorlat (2007), punctuation is normally included in orthography though it can also appear in syntax and prosody. Summing up, my survey will focus on the following aspects: i) I will analyze the arguments presented by the authors supporting the study of punctuation. That is, punctuation can be treated as either a necessary and useful art, or as an imperfect part of grammar that needs to be fixed. ii) I will consider the approach(es) that each grammar advocates: rhetorical, grammatical or hermeneutic. Once identified, I proceed to study the arguments presented by the author supporting the role or function of punctuation in his treatment of the subject. iii) The system of punctuation or, in other words, the number of punctuation marks encountered will be analyzed. In this, I follow Michael’s (1970) approach to grammars. In his survey, Michael (1970) classifies grammars according to the system of parts of speech they adopt. In his view, every system consists of a different number of parts of speech. One of my aims in this thesis is to demonstrate that it can work similarly for punctuation. Similarly, Salmon (1988) already distinguishes five systems54 of punctuation according to “the number

54 According to Salmon (1988), throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries we can distinguish five systems of punctuation on the basis of the terminology used. So we have systems comprising three terms, four terms (types i and ii), five terms and six terms (Salmon, 1988: 296). The three-term system comprised what were called “small branch”, “full branch” and “period” or, in Latin terms, the system comprised subdistinctio, media distinctio and distinctio perfecta, which would represent the present-day comma, colon and full stop, respectively. The four-term system type i comprised subdistinctio, comma, colon and punctum. The subdistinctio marked a pause 86

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

of terms in the set of stops” (1988: 295-296) to such an extent that we might argue that system equates number. So I will draw up tables in order to visualize the inventory of punctuation marks that comprises each system of punctuation. iv) I will analyze the function of each punctuation mark so as to find similarities and differences among authors. Thus, I will discuss the codified rules for each punctuation mark that were generally agreed on. v) The classification of punctuation marks will be done on the basis of the generic terminology used by each author. Aimed at finding a correlation between the generic terms and the models advocated, i.e. either Latin or vernacular, I will analyze the etymology of each term. That is, I attempt to demonstrate that the etymology of the generic terms is a covert indicator of the authors’ either conservative or reforming movement towards punctuation. Then, I will compare Michael’s (1970) systems of parts of speech with my systems of punctuation and generic terms to check to what extent authors were consistent in their stance towards either a Latinate or an English grammar. vi) The book’s section in which punctuation is located will be analyzed, i.e. syntax, orthography, prosody, or etymology, among others. vii) The analysis of the sources that authors consulted to either provide punctuation examples or give further details is relevant in so far as it mirrors the importance given by the author to others’ works. viii) Linked with the previous criterion, some authors plagiarized either the whole punctuation section or some passages from others to such an extent that influences can be traced among several authors.

The analysis of the grammar editions will be presented in the form of appendix, that is Appendix A, so as to illustrate the entirety of punctuation as far as systems shorter than the comma. The four-term system type ii is the same as the three-term system in which the semicolon has been added. The five-term system is the four-term system that also includes the semiperiod. The five-term system was laid down by Manutius in 1561 and he created the semiperiod as an intermediate pause between colon and period which must be followed by a lower-case letter. The six-term system is the five-term system in which the semicomma has been added. The semicomma was created in order to indicate that words do not follow grammatical order (Salmon, 1988: 296-298). Among the five systems of punctuation, the four-term system type ii is the one that has largely survived (Salmon, 1988: 297-298). 87

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

of punctuation are concerned in eighteenth-century grammars. Two other appendices are presented, Appendix B and C. In the former, an index of the authors alongside the author’s branch number and the number of the punctuation system is provided. In the latter, a chronological list of the editions consulted per author is presented. Interestingly, some authors such as Priestley (1761) and Bridel55 (1797) were consistent in the exclusion of punctuation from their respective eight and three editions. Likewise, Fisher (1719-1778) and Lowth were consistent in their treatment of punctuation. Both grammarians dealt with punctuation in their 18 and 33 editions, respectively, and neither author added nor discarded any information on punctuation. As a result, the punctuation approach that each author advocated was never altered. For instance, Fisher presented her punctuation system comprising 6 stops and 18 marks whereas Lowth’s system comprised 7 points grouped into a set of 4 points that mark the pauses in discourse and a set of 3 points that denote different voice intonations. Opposed to the consistency encountered in the editions of the aforementioned authors, Ash (1724-1779) presented two types of punctuation systems throughout his 24 editions of Grammatical Institutes. Ash’s two types of punctuation systems are labelled as Branch 2. a) Type 5.a and c) Type 5.b in the classification system that I provide in Appendix A. together with the authors that used each of them. Inconsistency is even more conspicuous in Lindley Murray (1745-1826). In five editions of Murray’s English Grammar and in four editions of his Abridgement, three types of punctuation systems are encountered: Branch 1 Type 1; Branch 3. b) Type 7.b and Branch 4.a) Type 2.

4.2. Importance of punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars Monteith (1704) asserted in his treatise on punctuation that without points “the Progress [is] Impeded” (1704: 6). At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Monteith (1704) considered punctuation to be an art. Strikingly, as far as authors of grammars are concerned, not until the 1750s did any author refer to punctuation as an art. Martin (1754) was the first author who defined punctuation as “the Art of Composition”, an art that comprises “the making [of] a Discourse of Periods

~~55 Edmund Bridel’s life-dates were not available in ECEG. 88~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

and Sentences […]” in order to “compose, write, or read a Discourse well on any Subject […]” (Martin, 1754: 128). Subsequently, Lowth (1762) was the second author who considered punctuation to be an art. He stated that punctuation is “the art of marking in writing the several pauses, or rests, between sentences, and the parts of sentences, according to their proper quantity or proportion, as they are expressed in a just and accurate pronunciation” (Lowth, 1762: 154). Aside from Martin (1754) and Lowth (1762), twenty other authors, such as Burn (1766), Fenning (1771), Raine (1771), Shaw (1778), Anon. or Doway (ECEG)56 (1781), Story (1783), Ireland (1784), Webster (1784), Ash (1785), Coote (1788), Bingham (1790), Devis (1791), Meikleham (1795), Miller (1795), Murray (1795), Postlethwaite (1795), Rhodes (1795), Coar (1796), Bullen (1797), Burr (1797), Gardiner (1799) and Hodson (1800), agreed on the status of punctuation as an art. It is worth mentioning that Meikleham (1795) did not consider punctuation to be an art in his grammar edition of 1781 but he revised his opinion in his fourth edition. Even though other authors, not least Ward (1766) and Buchanan (1768), did not refer to punctuation as an art, they considered it to be “introductory to the Knowledge of Languages” and “a Province beyond the Capacities of mere Youth: and is reserved for riper Judgment […]”, respectively (Ward, 1766: 16; Buchanan, 1768: 50). Related to the foregoing, many other authors like Woolgar (1766), Wise (1772) and Anon. (1788a), argued that punctuation is an important doctrine. The three of them made use of expressions such as “absolutely necessary” (Wise, 1772: 26), “very necessary” (Anon., 1788a: 33) and “of absolute necessity” (Woolgar, 1766: 18) to explain the reasons why punctuation should be studied in grammar. What is more, Woolgar (1766) asserted that punctuation marks should be held in high regard because they “[…] add grace and credit to your writing” (Woolgar, 1766: 20). Newbery (1745), Ward (1766), Jones (1771) and Anon. or Newbery (ECEG) (1776) were the sole authors who explicitly mentioned that punctuation marks are used in writing and printing. It is likely that the aforesaid authors made reference to printed books to show that rules of punctuation had become widespread.

56 As already discussed in Chapter 1, I note the dissenting authorship of some grammars throughout my survey. That is, ECEG provides data on the authorship of some grammars that have been labelled as anonymous in ECCO. 89

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Despite the relevance and diffusion of punctuation, many authors complained about its imperfection. That is, six authors, Lowth (1762: 155), Buchanan (1767: 180), Harrison (1794: 99-100), Postlethwaite (1795: 35), Murray (1798a: 219) and Hodson (1800: 42), asserted that the doctrine of punctuation is imperfect on the grounds that punctuation marks cannot mark with precision all the pauses of different quantity. Likewise, Metcalfe (1771: 23) and Meikleham (1781: 22-23) stated that rational pointing is difficult to enforce on the basis that the use of punctuation marks depends on everyone’s ear. Linked with the previous idea, seven authors, Greenwood (1711: 225), Maittaire (1712: 200), Fenning (1771: 162), Crocker (1775: 61), Rhodes (1795: 60), Stapleton (1797: 2) and Hodson (1800: 42), asserted that the doctrine of punctuation is not fixed. According to Fenning (1771), Webster (1785) and Rhodes (1795), rules on punctuation are extremely arbitrary (Fenning, 1771: 162; Webster, 1785: 7; Rhodes, 1795: 66) since there is no agreement among the learned (Greenwood, 1711: 225; Maittaire, 1712: 200). However, adjectives like ‘arbitrary’ or ‘uniform’ are not ascribed exclusively to eighteenth-century punctuation since, according to many scholars, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century punctuation practices were equally arbitrary, non-uniform or lax (Jenkinson, 1926: 153-154; Petti, 1977: 25). In view of the fact that the use of punctuation marks is subjective to a considerable extent, Webster (1784) advocated an imperfect doctrine of punctuation on the grounds that punctuation cannot be reduced to rules. More radical was Stapleton’s standpoint of rules of punctuation. In contrast with authors who strove for reaching an agreement on the rules of punctuation, Stapleton (1797) dared to assert that the rules of punctuation that any grammarian attempts to lay down are not worth attending to on the grounds that “a mere grammarian is a mere blockhead” (Stapleton, 1797: 2-3). In addition, Postlethwaite (1795) refuted the rules on accent that grammarians and lexicographers have laid down on the basis that “[n]either (´) the Acute, nor (`) the Grave, doth properly denote it; for these are Marks expressive of emphatic Syllables; and the Marking of every Syllable alike, with the (´) Acute, is a Fault for which many Lexicographers are to be blamed” (Postlethwaite, 1795: 46). Similarly, in favor of Webster’s statement, Mennye (1785: 74), Anon. (1788b: 41) and Bingham (1790: 55), argued that the proper use of punctuation marks cannot be learnt by heart by means of rules but by means of observation (1785: 74). Namely, as Brittain (1788) suggested, it is

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

necessary to pay attention to most correct writers and speakers so as to attain perfection in punctuation (Brittain, 1788: 141). For instance, Postlethwaite (1795) advised readers and speakers to imitate Dr. Porteus, “the present amiable Bishop of London” on the grounds that, with regard to cadence and intonation, Dr. Porteus is “a most excellent Guide” (Postlethwaite, 1795: 44). All in all, given that punctuation was unfixed, Lowth (1762), as well as Fenning (1771: 162), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781: 49), Story (1783: 68), Harrison (1794: 100), Postlethwaite (1795: 36), Rhodes (1795: 60), Stapleton (1797: 3) and Hodson (1800: 42), suggested that rules of punctuation serve for a general direction since, in general, punctuation is left to the judgment and taste of the writer (Lowth, 1762: 155). Despite the foregoing debate on the rules of punctuation, authors highlighted the usefulness of punctuation. That is to say, in order to emphasize the importance of punctuation, some authors discussed the negative consequences that the bad use of punctuation marks entails, an issue that had already been discussed in earlier centuries by schoolmasters like Hogarth (1689) and Lye (1671) and authors of treatises of punctuation like the author of the anonymous treatise of punctuation published in 1680 (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 43). Fisher (1753: 42), Smetham (1774: 35) and Wilson (1792: 39) discussed, for instance, the consequences that a bad punctuation practice entailed to a bishop of Asello. The misplacement of a comma after the word nulli in the sentence “[p]orta patens esto, nulli claudaris honesto” which is translated as “[g]ate, be thou open, and not shut to any honest man” led to the wrong statement: “[g]ate, be thou open to no Body, but be shut to an honest Man” (Fisher, 1753: 42). Likewise, Fisher (1753: 42) and Wilson (1792: 39), beside Bicknell (1790: 128-129) and Postlethwaite (1795: 36), argued that the misuse of punctuation marks affects the authorial meaning to such an extent that the meaning becomes nonsensical and inverted. According to Smetham (1774), not only writing but also reading could be affected by the misuse of punctuation marks since reading would become unintelligible (1774: 27). Fenning (1771) argued that both good and bad writers alike could be rendered “obscure” and “absolutely unintelligible” because of a wrong punctuation practice (1771: 162). Finally, other authors such as Brittain (1788) and Lowth (1762) discussed the consequences of the overuse of punctuation and the increase in the number of punctuation marks, respectively. With regard to the former, Brittain (1788) stated that the written text could be disfigured by the excessive use of punctuation marks

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

(1788: 141). As for the latter, Lowth (1762) asserted that readers would not be assisted by punctuation if the number of punctuation marks was increased in the text since the doctrine of punctuation might render difficult. As a result, readers might feel overwhelmed by the difficulties (1762: 156). All things considered, the importance of punctuation is undeniable. Many authors considered punctuation to be an ‘art’ and they approved of its usefulness. According to most authors, the doctrine of punctuation is completely necessary to write and read well on the basis that punctuation marks help both readers and speakers to pronounce accurately and to distinguish sentences, respectively. Therefore, despite the disagreement on the establishment of rules of punctuation, punctuation marks are helpful to avoid misconstructions, as the examples provided by Fisher (1753), Smetham (1774) and Wilson (1792), among others, attested.

~~4.3. Approaches to punctuation As for the approach to punctuation, out of 238 editions, 229 editions of 74 grammars advocated a combination of grammatical and rhetorical approaches.~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Approach Rhetorical + Grammatical Rhetorical + Total Grammatical + ‘Sense’ Barker 1733 Anon. or Gildon and Loughton 1734, 1735, 1744, 1749 Brightland (ECEG) Stirling 1735, 1740 1711, 1712, 1712, 1712, Lowe 1737 1714, 1721, 1735?, Turner 1739, 1741 1746, 1759 Martin 1754, 1757, 1766 Greenwood 1711, 1722, Gough 1760, 1792 1729, 1737, 1750, 1753, Ash 1761, 1771, 1772, 1775, 1777, 1759, 1761, 1763, 1770 1777, 1780, 1781, 1783, 1783, 1784, Maittaire 1712 1785, 1786, 1788, 1789, 1791, 1793, Corbet 1743 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1796, 1798, Newbery 1745, 1748, 1799 1752, 1752, 1769, Lowth 1762, 1763, 1763, 1764, 1764, 1770?, 1776 1765, 1765, 1769, 1769, 1771, 1772, Anon. 1746, 1760 1774, 1775, 1775, 1775, 1778, 1778, Fisher 1753, 1754, 1762, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1783, 1785, 1763, 1767, 1768, 1771, 1786, 1786, 1790, 1791, 1793, 1794, 1779, 1780?, 1785, 1795, 1795, 1799, 1799 1788, 1789, 1789, 1791, Elphinston 1765, 1766 1794, 1795, 1795, 1800 Ward 1766?, 1767 Wise 1754, 1760, 1762, Hodgson 1770, 1787 1763, 1766, 1772, 1773 Fenning 1771, 1790?, 1793, 1800 Burn 1766, 1772, 1778, Authors Metcalfe 1771, 1777 1786 Crocker 1772, 1775, 1786 Woolgar 1766 Johnston 1772 Buchanan 1767, 1769, Ward 1777 1780 Bettesworth 1778 Wilson 1769 Shaw 1778, 1785, 1788 Raine 1771, 1776 Green 1779 Carter 1773 Anon. or Doway (ECEG) 1781 Smetham 1774 Meikleham 1781, 1795, 1797 Anon. or Newbery, Story 1783, 1793 (ECEG) 1776 Corbet 1784, 1785 Steele 1782 Webster 1784, 1785, 1787, 1787?, Ireland 1784 1790, 1792, 1792, 1794, 1796, 1796, Brittain 1788, 1790 1797, 1798, 1800 Coote 1788 Chown 1788 Anon. 1788a Anon. 1788b Bicknell 1790 Francis 1790 Wilson 1792, 1797 Pape 1790 Harrison 1794, 1800? Bingham 1790, 1794, 1796, 1799 Murray 1795, 1796, Devis 1791, 1793, 1795 1797a, 1797b, 1798a, Anon. 1791 1798b, 1799a, 1799b, Fogg 1792-96 1800 Hornsey 1793 Postlethwaite 1795 Wright 1794 Rhodes 1795 Miller 1795 Bullen 1797 Coar 1796 Burr 1797 Stapleton 1797 Gardiner 1799 J.G. 1799 Hodson 1800 Total 40 30 70 Number of Authors Total 135 94 229 Number of Editions Table 3. Itemization of 238 editions according to the mixture of approaches and the reference to ‘sense’

~~As can be seen in Table 3, specifically 94 out of the 229 editions opted for such a combination of approaches with the aim of avoiding confusion of sense. As it will~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

be explained later on, five grammars defended the hermeneutic approach, one grammar defended the grammatical approach exclusively, two grammars defended the rhetorical approach with a nod to sense and one grammar did not mention any of the approaches.

~~Approach Hermeneutic Grammatical Rhetorical + None ‘Sense’ Buchanan 1762, Jones 1771 Anon. 1770-1771 Mennye 1785 Authors 1768, 1784, 1792 McGowan 1773 Anon. or Hall (ECEG) 1789~~

~~Total Number of 2 1 2 1 Authors Total Number of 5 1 2 1 Editions Table 4. Itemization of 238 editions according to individual approaches to punctuation~~

4.3.1. The rhetorical and grammatical approaches Curiously, even though both rhetorical and grammatical approaches were given importance, some authors reflected the primacy of one of them when discussing the function(s) of the set of ‘primary’57 punctuation marks. As cases in point, in favour of the grammatical approach, Harrison (1794) claimed that the “first and principal office [of punctuation marks] is to elucidate the construction and meaning of sentences […]” (1794: 99). By contrast, when dealing with the functions of punctuation marks, Crocker (1772) explained the rhetorical function in the main body of his text and relegated the grammatical one to footnotes. In the form of a footnote, Crocker stated that “[a]fter having given the above account of the Stops [the rhetorical account] to the Reader, it may not be amiss to give here some further account of the four first [comma, semicolon, colon and period] to the Writer” (Crocker, 1772: 62).

4.3.1.1. Types of rhetorical explanations provided As for the explanations that authors provided to argue the rhetorical and grammatical functions of punctuation, the rhetorical ones were the most diverse. Breathing (including the analogy between musical notations and points), cadence and intonation were the rhetorical explanations that authors provided. In relation

~~57 See the discussion on the differences between the set of the so-called ‘primary’ punctuation marks and the ‘secondary’ one in Chapter 3, section 3.5.2. 94~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

to breathing, the most recurrent assertions were that punctuation marks must be used “[…] for the sake of taking breath” (Wright, 1794: 68), “[…] for the ease of breath” (Maittaire, 1712: 21) or should be determined “by the wants of respiration […]” (Meikleham, 1795: 24). Similarly, Rhodes (1795) asserted that readers must breathe from time to time and then he stated that breathing pauses differ in length. That is, the comma requires a short breathing pause, the semicolon and the colon require longer breathing pauses, and the period requires an even longer breathing pause given that the first three “leave the judgment in suspense” while the latter “unfolds the whole, and calls for a concluding cadence” (Rhodes, 1795: 69). Rhodes’s assertion had already been advocated by eleven other authors –Anon. or

Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711: 149), Greenwood (1711: 227-228), Burn (1766: 181-185), Wilson (1769: 2), Anon. (1788b: 41), Anon. (1788a: 33-34), Bingham (1790: 55), Coar (1796: 217-219), Bullen (1797: 106-107), Burr (1797: 47-48) and Stapleton (1797: 3)– since they had made a distinction between the shortest pause, i.e. the comma, and the longest, i.e. the period. Likewise, Rhodes (1795: 60) as well as thirteen other authors –Maittaire (1712: 201), Lowth (1762: 158), Ward (1777: 31), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781: 49-50), Story (1783: 66), Brittain (1788: 141), Coote (1788: 266), Anon. (1791: 24-25), Devis (1791: 121- 122), Miller (1795: 21), Murray (1795: 159), Gardiner (1799: 94) and Hodson (1800: 43)– theorized that shorter pauses are doubled by longer ones. Thus, as a general rule, “[t]he Period is a pause in quantity or duration double of the Colon; the Colon is double of the Semicolon; and the Semicolon is double of the Comma” (Lowth, 1762: 158). Furthermore, not only did authors fix the gradation of pauses, but attempted to fix the duration of each pause. This is the case of Fisher (1753) who theorized, among thirty-four other authors, that: “[a] Comma stops the Reader’s Voice, whilst one may deliberately count the Number one; the Semicolon, one, two; the Colon, one, two, three; the Period […] one, two, three, four.” (1753: 37). The thirty-four authors that agreed with Fisher (1753) were the following ones: Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1712: 127), Loughton (1734: 148-149), Stirling (1735: no p.), Turner (1739: 36), Corbet (1743: 93), Newbery (1745: 119), Anon. (1746: 87), Wise (1754: 26), Gough (1760: 12), Ash (1761: xxii-xxiii), Buchanan (1762: 53), Elphinston (1765: 187), Woolgar (1766: 18), Anon. (1770-1771: 112), Hodgson (1770: 164), Fenning (1771: 156), Johnston (1772: 36), Carter (1773:

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

31), McGowan (1773: 125), Smetham (1774: 27-28), Anon. or Newbery (ECEG) (1776: 44), Bettesworth (1778: 5), Shaw (1778: 19), Green (1779: 38), Steele (1782: 151), Chown (1788: 14-15), Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789: 54), Bicknell (1790: 131), Francis (1790: 7), Pape (1790: 9), Fogg (1792-1796: 61), Wilson (1792: 34) and J.G. (1799: 35). Interestingly, unlike the former thirty-five authors, Webster (1784) ascribed a different duration to the period. Thus, according to Webster (1784), the proportional duration of the period, the colon, the semicolon and the comma would be six, four, two and one, respectively (1784: 133). Finally, Crocker (1772) and Wright (1794) followed Fisher’s theory and modified it to a small extent since, according to these authors, pauses parallel syllables. Namely, the comma is equal to one syllable (Wright, 1794: 68), the semicolon is equal to two syllables (Crocker, 1772: 62), the colon is equal to three syllables (Crocker, 1772: 62) and the period is equal to four syllables (Crocker, 1772: 62; Wright, 1794: 69).58 As far as breathing pauses are concerned, some authors, not least Fogg (1792- 1796), Harrison (1794) and Postlethwaite (1795), discussed the exactness of the aforementioned theories and, subsequently, leant towards one of them. Firstly, Fogg (1792-1796: 183) gave preference to Fisher’s theory, i.e. the theory that fixes the duration of each pause, over Lowth’s, i.e. the theory that establishes the gradation of pauses, on the grounds that the former is commonly used in elementary books. On the contrary, Postlethwaite (1795: 37-38) gave preference to Lowth’s theory over Fisher’s and Crocker’s, i.e. the theory that equates pauses with syllables, on the grounds that the exact duration of each pause cannot be ascertained. Despite differing opinions, both, Fogg (1792-1796) and Postlethwaite (1795) agreed that neither theory is exact. Finally, Harrison (1794) considered both Fisher’s and Lowth’s theories to be “entirely fanciful” on the grounds that the diversity of pause in speech cannot be “circumscribed by rule” (1794: 107-108). As far as the analogy between music and punctuation is concerned, Maittaire (1712) claimed that music is an art “allied to Grammar” (1712: 201). In fact, as Salmon (1988) stated, the analogy between musical notations and points as well as the theory of the number of syllables ascribed to each punctuation mark, are

~~58 Salmon (1988: 292) refers to the theory of syllables as a theory that died hard in view of the support that such a theory received from seventeenth- and eighteenth-century scholars. 96~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~features of medieval punctuation that have survived (Salmon, 1988: 287; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998a: 125-126). Six authors like Anon. or Gildon and~~

Brightland (ECEG) (1712: 127), Buchanan (1762: 53), Hodgson (1770: 164), Wise (1772: 26), Meikleham (1781: 23) and Steele (1782: 151) drew a parallel between punctuation and music on the basis that punctuation marks, not least the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period, bear a sort of musical proportion of time one to another. Six other authors, such as Maittaire (1712: 201), Lowth (1762: 158), Story (1783: 66), Devis (1791: 122), Postlethwaite (1795: 38) and Rhodes (1795: 60), explicitly stated that “[…] they [points] are in the same proportion to one another as the Semibrief, the Minim, the Crotchet, and the Quaver, in Music” (Lowth, 1762: 158) on the grounds that shorter musical notes are doubled by longer ones. In this way, Lowth’s theory on the gradual progression of pauses was supported. Unlike the former authors, Fogg (1792- 1796: 183-184) did not advocate the analogy between music and punctuation since, according to this author, such an analogy strengthens the plausibility of the theory on the gradual progression of pauses proposed by Lowth (1762) (Fogg, 1792-1796: 183). Moreover, Fogg considers the aforesaid theory to be inexact. With regard to cadence and intonation, Postlethwaite (1795) as well as Burn (1766: 181), Ireland (1784: 276) and Coar (1796: 216), stated that “[p]unctuation is the Art of making proper Points in Writing; expressing the several Rests, or Pauses, which ought to be made in Reading, and directing the Elevation, or Cadence of the Voice” (Postlethwaite, 1795: 35). That is, punctuation teaches the reader to raise or fall the “tone or voice” (Woolgar, 1766: 18). According to Buchanan (1762: 50), every scholar must know the cadence ascribed to each of the ‘primary’ punctuation marks and, in this sense, Meikleham (1795: 24) stated that “[…] those, who have observed good speakers, will readily perceive what tones should be used previous to each point”. With regard to the comma, the vast majority of authors agreed on its intonation pattern in view of the fact that six authors –Ash (1761: xxii), Woolgar (1766: 18), Hornsey (1793: 55), Rhodes (1795: 69), Coar (1796: 217) and J.G. (1799: 35)– suggested that the voice must be elevated to a certain extent since, in general, the comma is “almost imperceptible in the course of reading” (Pape, 1790: 9). Unlike the foregoing authors, Anon. (1788a: 33) was the only author who asserted that “neither sinking, or rising,” of the voice is ascribed to the comma but he did not provide any

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

justification to his assertion. As for the semicolon, according to Ash (1761: xxii) and J.G. (1799: 35), this punctuation mark denotes an “Evenness” of the voice or, as Hornsey (1793: 55) and Woolgar (1766: 18-19) suggested, it marks a little depression or “abatement” of the voice. With regard to the colon, authors entirely agreed on the cadence ascribed to it given that Ash (1761: xxii), Woolgar (1766: 19), Anon. (1788a: 34), Hornsey (1793: 55) and J.G. (1799: 35) asserted that there must be a little depression or fall of the voice at the colon because it “leave[s] the judgment in suspense till the period unfolds the whole, and calls for a concluding cadence” (Rhodes, 1795: 69). Likewise, four authors –Ash (1761: xxii-xxiii), Anon. (1788a: 34), Hornsey (1793: 56) and J.G. (1799: 35)– agreed on the cadence ascribed to the period which, in general, was a “concluding cadence” (Rhodes, 1795: 69) owing to the greater depression of the voice than that of the colon. All in all, the types of cadence ascribed to each punctuation mark were generally agreed on despite the assertions of some authors like Postlethwaite (1795: 44) who suggested that the comma never admits any cadence. The interrogation and the exclamation marks were treated, for the most part, as ‘primary’ punctuation marks and, according to fourteen authors –Greenwood (1711: 225), Gough (1760: 13), Lowth (1762: 171-172), Fenning (1771: 158), Burn (1772: 217), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781: 54), Meikleham (1781: 23), Story (1783: 68), Webster (1784: 138), Anon. (1788b: 41-42), Coote (1788: 266), Devis (1791: 123), Harrison (1794: 111), and Hodson (1800: 48)–, both punctuation marks denote a modulation of the voice suited to the expression. As for the interrogation mark, eleven authors altogether – Gough (1760: 13), Ash (1761: xxiii), Lowth (1762: 172), Burn (1766: 186), Anon. (1770-1771: 112), Fenning (1771: 159), Raine (1771: 214), Ward (1777: 31), Hornsey (1793: 56), Wright (1794: 69), Murray (1795: 170), J.G. (1799: 35) and Hodson (1800: 49)– asserted that it marks an elevation of the voice and, as Ash (1761) and J.G. (1799) suggested, a “smartness in pronunciation”. Finally, with regard to the exclamation mark, Greenwood (1711: 226), Lowth (1762: 172), Wilson (1769: 2), Anon. (1770-1771: 112), Fenning (1771: 159), Raine (1771: 214), Ward (1777: 31), Chown (1788: 16), Bicknell (1790: 131), Pape (1790: 12), Murray (1795: 170) and Hodson (1800: 49) asserted that it marks an elevation of the voice as well. In sum, in view of the higher number of authors who ascribed cadence or intonation patterns to the interrogation and the exclamation marks, it could be

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~argued that the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period were discussed to a lesser extent in terms of cadence.~~

4.3.1.2. Types of grammatical explanations provided The distinction of sentences and parts of sentences was the grammatical basis of punctuation for people like Maittaire (1712: 191) and Gough (1760), among others: We have in the first Part declared the Pauses to be observed at the Points or Stops in reading, and are now come to the proper Place to treat of their Use in distinguishing the Parts of a Sentence. The Points used to distinguish the Parts of a Sentence are, a Comma, Semicolon, a Colon, a Period, and a Parenthesis (Gough, 1760: 87).

In order to deal with the grammatical function of punctuation marks, eleven authors –Martin (1754: 128), Lowth (1762: 160), Shaw (1778: 19), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781: 51), Webster (1784: 133-134), Ash (1785: 163), Bicknell (1790: 123), Devis (1791: 122), Harrison (1794: 100-101), Murray (1795: 159- 160) and Hodson (1800: 43-44)– discussed syntactical aspects like the distinction between simple and compound sentences.59 As for the former, Martin (1754: 128) said that “Jesus wept; the Sun shines; Life is short; Art is long and difficult […]” are examples of simple sentences on the grounds that each of them contains “a Noun, a Verb, and another Word that expresses what the Verb affirms of the Noun or Subject” (ibid). As for the latter, Martin (ibid) said that the sentence “Wit and Wisdom are two very different Things. Wisdom is always found of those who seek her” is compounded on the grounds that it contains two or more “single”, i.e. simple, sentences (ibid). Likewise, Postlethwaite (1795) discussed elementary grammatical notions like the link between nominatives and verbs as follows: “every Nominative must have its Verb, and every Verb its Nominative; and, […] the Nominatives and Verbs, which belong to one another, must be marked from others by a Point of Distinction” (1795: 38). The justification that authors provided to deal with the syntactical aspects mentioned above was that the learner must be acquainted with “ […] the Doctrine of Sentences and Periods” (Martin, 1754: 128), that is, the learner must be acquainted with “the nature of a Sentence, as divided into its constructive parts; and the degrees of connexion between those

~~59 More information about the distinction between simple and compound sentences is provided below in section 4.6.2. 99~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

parts […]” (Lowth, 1762: 159-160) so as to apply punctuation marks properly and, thereupon, “compose, write, or read a Discourse well on any Subject […]” (Martin, 1754: 128). As a result, distinctions were made between the comma, that is, the “[…] smallest division of a sentence” (Bingham, 1790: 56) and the colon, that is, “[…] the largest division of the sentence.” (ibid).

4.3.2. The rhetorical and grammatical approaches with a nod to sense Given the discussion on sentences, the vast majority of authors deployed the term sense so as to allude to the completeness or incompleteness of the sentence. As cases in point, Hodson (1800) defined the colon as the pause that “[…] marks the greatest division of a sentence, and is a member thereof; containing a perfect sense, but not a perfect sentence” (1800: 43) and Ash (1796) defined the parenthesis as the punctuation mark “[…] used to include some short Sentence within the Body of a larger one, which though not necessary to the Sense, yet should serve to explain or illustrate it” (1796: xxii). Interestingly, the vast majority of authors did mention the term sense in their discussions on punctuation but only those who furthered sense as the key element in the text have been classified into the column entitled ‘Rhetorical + Grammatical + Sense’ in Table 3 above. That is, as exposed in the aforesaid table, according to 31 authors, the clarification of sense turned out to be the main aim to attain when punctuating texts. For example, Greenwood (1711) stated that, aside from marking breathing pauses, punctuation marks must distinguish the sense in a sentence (1711: 225). Likewise, this author and others like Burn (1766: 181; 1772: 212) discussed the importance of punctuation as the means to prevent ambiguity in sense. Other authors, such as Newbery (1745: 119), Wise (1766: 26), Carter (1773: 30-31) and Wilson (1792: 33), claimed that both grammatical and rhetorical approaches are essential to avoid misconstructions and confusion. As Wise stated: The stops are used to shew [sic] what distance of time must be observed in reading: and they are so absolutely necessary to the better understanding of what we write, and read, that without a strict attention to them, all writing would be confused, and liable to many misconstructions (Wise, 1766: 26).

However, the aforementioned authors did not pioneer the combination of grammatical and rhetorical approaches with the aim of clarifying the sense of a text. The clarification of sense was the primary aim of sixteenth- and seventeenth-

~~100~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

century schoolmasters, translators, grammarians and lawyers (Salmon, 1988: 288- 293; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 45).60 Moreover, in the seventeenth century, the authors of two treatises on punctuation, such as Lewis (1675) and Anon. (1680) asserted that the coherence of a text is dependent on the right use of punctuation marks (Medina-Sánchez and Rodríguez-Álvarez, forthcoming). For instance, in the anonymous treatise it was stated that: If to each Stop, you giv the time that’s du, The Sens will then appear both plain, and tru. If any of them by you be neglected, The Sens of what you Read, can’t be expected (1680: 7).

As Anon. (1680), Rhodes (1795) discussed the link between pauses and sense in reading since he started from the premise that “[…] pauses are governed by the sense, connexion, and effect of what is spoken” (1795: 69).

4.3.3. The hermeneutic approach to punctuation As discussed at the beginning of section 4.3., in five grammars out of 238, the hermeneutic approach was advocated. In some grammars, like those by Buchanan (1762: 49) and Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789: 49-50), the analogy between some parts of the human body and punctuation marks was deployed so as to illustrate the idea that writing is the image of speech: As in Speech or Discourse there are several Motions made by different Parts of the Body, such as with the Head, Hands, Finger, Arms, & c. in order to excite Attention, and transmit a more clear and perfect Idea to the Hearer, of the Meaning and Intention of the Speaker: So Writing being the very Image of Speech, there are several Points or Marks made use of in it, not only to mark the Distance of Time in Reading, and to prevent any Obscurity or Confusion in the Sense; but also, that the various Affections and Emotions of the Soul, described by the Writer, may be more clearly distinguished and comprehended by the Reader (Buchanan, 1762: 49. [Italics added]).

It is noteworthy that a similitude can be traced between Ben Jonson (1572-1637) and Buchanan (1762). In her article, van den Berg (1995) displays an argument that was used by Jonson in which breath is paralleled to blood with the aim of explaining the role of rhetorical punctuation: There resteth one generall Affection of the whole, dispersed thorow every member thereof, as the bloud is thorow the body; and consisteth in the Breathing, when we pronounce any Sentence; For, whereas our breath is by nature so short, that we cannot continue without a stay to speake long together; it

~~60 See Chapter 3, section 3.4.2.2. 101~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

was thought necessarie, as well as for the speakers ease, as for the plainer deliverance of the things spoken, to invent this meanes, whereby men pausing a pretty while, the whole speech might never the worse be understood (Jonson, HS VIII. 551; quoted from van den Berg, 1995: 8. [Emphasis added]).

Thus, as shown in both quotations, Buchanan and Jonson drew upon the body as a trope to account for the written text as an organic whole, i.e., “a body in its own right, its materiality replacing that of the orators physical form” (van den Berg, 1995: 5). Likewise, Jonson as well as Buchanan (1762) asserted that punctuation marks help to transmit the semantic nuances that the writer intends to convey in the text so that the combination of both rhetorical and grammatical approaches is essential. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the text is linked with the correct usage of punctuation. Despite the combination of rhetorical and syntactical criteria, it must be noted that the written channel is subjugated to the spoken one in view of Buchanan’s assertion, i.e. writing is the image of speech. Accordingly, as discussed in section 3.4.1., authors who advocated hermeneutic punctuation gave preference to the rhetorical function of punctuation marks over the syntactical.

4.3.4. The grammatical approach to punctuation As seen in Table 4, Jones (1771) advocated solely the grammatical approach to punctuation since, according to this author, the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period are “grammatical points” (Jones, 1771: 27) that mark the four parts of a period. Moreover, in his scarce five lines devoted to punctuation, he stated that the choice of punctuation marks depends on the printer’s option.

4.3.5. The rhetorical approach to punctuation with a nod to sense Anon. (1770-1771: 112) and McGowan (1773: 124-125) advocated the rhetorical approach to punctuation exclusively and considered the attention to sense to be the key element to avoid misconstructions. For instance, McGowan asserted that “[…] we make use of certain marks to denote the duration of time to be observed in reading, to prevent confusion, or obscurity, [so] that the sense of the writer may be more clearly comprehended by the reader.” (McGowan, 1773: 124-125). It must be noted that McGowan (1773) discussed the general function of

~~102~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

punctuation in hermeneutic terms to a small extent since a parallelism can be traced between his words and Buchanan’s (1762): As in speech we express our ideas by various motions of head and hand, in order to excite attention in the hearer; so in writing, which is the image of speech, we make use of certain marks to denote the duration of time to be observed in reading, to prevent confusion, or obscurity that the sense of the writer may be more clearly comprehended by the reader. (McGowan, 1773: 124-125. [Italics added]).

Unlike Buchanan (1762), McGowan (1773) only defined his six punctuation marks –the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks– in rhetorical terms, and neither did he consider that punctuation conveys the semantic nuances of the writer.

4.3.6. No approach to punctuation Finally, Mennye (1785: 74) is the sole author who provided punctuation marks without discussing them. It is worth mentioning that, according to Salmon (1988: 299), from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, several grammarians only listed punctuation marks without describing them, therefore, Mennye (1785) cannot be treated as an isolated case.

4.3.7. Concluding remarks All in all, in view of the results displayed in Tables 3 and 4, authors were not clung to a single approach to punctuation. On the contrary, authors advocated a combination of criteria, hence the rhetorical, syntactical and semantic discussions of the set of ‘primary’ punctuation marks. Nonetheless, as for rhetorical principles, for instance, some authors overtly questioned the exactness of some theories like Lowth’s, i.e. the theory that establishes the gradation of pauses. As shown so far, in broad terms, authors were concerned about the comprehensibility of the text, hence the importance of the correct transmission of sense. In fact, the correct transmission of sense became the main aim of punctuation. Moreover, I must pinpoint that not only eighteenth-century authors but also sixteenth- and seventeenth-century schoolmasters combined different criteria in order to convey the correct sense of the text (see Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010).

~~103~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4.4. Punctuation: a rhetorical or a syntactic issue? Intrinsically connected to the different approaches to punctuation, the discussion on punctuation was located in diverse book sections. Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 display the sections where each author located the discussion on punctuation which were: - In no specific section - In two or three sections - In the sections ‘Syntax’, ‘Of sentences’, after ‘Sentences’ and ‘Orthography’ - In the sections ‘Quantity and Accent’, ‘rules for Reading and Speaking’, ‘Reading’ and ‘Prosody’ - In the sections ‘Supplement’, ‘Appendix’, ‘Back Matter’ - In the sections ‘Syllables’ and ‘Letters’ Though I have classified every edition in fifteen different sections, I must note that the section entitled ‘Of sentences’ is also called ‘Syntax’. As discussed later on, it must be noted that the insertion of punctuation within a single book section does not entail the gathering of punctuation marks in one single group.

4.4.1. Punctuation discussed in no specific section In total, 59 out of 60 editions of 22 grammars did not include punctuation within a specific section but within the general discussion on ‘grammar’ and, generally speaking, punctuation was located either at the beginning or at the end of the discussion. In Table 5 the total number of authors and editions are displayed.

~~104~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Sections No specific section Two sections Barker 1733 ‘Syntax/ Stirling 1735, 1740 Orthography’ Lowe 1737 Greenwood 1711, 1722, Wise 1754, 1760, 1762, 1763, 1766, 1772, 1773 1729, 1753, 1761, 1763, Ash 1761, 1771, 1772, 1775, 1777, 1777, 1780, 1770; 1781, 1783, 1783, 1784, 1786, 1788, 1789, 1791, Gough 1760, 1792 1793, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1796, 1798, 1799 Woolgar 1766 ‘Prosody/Syntax’ Wilson G. 1769 Maittaire 1712 Hodgson 1770, 1787 Fenning 1771, 1790?, 1793, 1800 ‘Grammar/ Raine 1771, 1776 ‘Syntax’ Authors Bettesworth 1778 Greenwood 1737, 1750, Green 1779 1759 Francis 1790 Bicknell 1790 ‘Of contraction, Similarity Bingham 1790, 1794, 1796, 1799 and Abbreviations/ Prosody/ Anon. or Doway (ECEG) 1781 Grammatical dissertations’ Corbet John 1784, 1785 Fogg 1792-1796 Pape 1790 Anon. 1791 ‘Introduction’/ Rhodes 1795 ’Appendix’ Coar 1796 Ash 1785 Hodson 1800 Total number 22 5 of authors Total number 60 15 of editions Table 5. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in two or three sections and in no specific one

As for the beginning of the discussion on ‘grammar’, Wilson (1769) stated that grammar comprises four parts, i.e. orthography, etymology, syntax and prosody (Wilson, 1769: 1) and, immediately thereafter, he discussed punctuation marks, as Figure 2 shows.

~~Figure 2. Wilson’s (1769) introduction to his discussion on ‘grammar’~~

~~105~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

In line with Wilson (1769), Ash (1761) regarded punctuation as introductory to grammar, hence Ash’s heading “Introduction to the Grammatical Institutes” (Ash, 1761: xi). In fact, in the case of Ash (1761), not only punctuation marks but letters were treated in the introduction. Moreover, he discussed etymology and syntax in that order. That is, his discussions on etymology and syntax followed the so-called “Introduction to the Grammatical Institutes” so the parallelism between this and ‘orthography’ seems plausible. However, in view of the fact that Ash (1761) did not deploy the ‘orthography’ heading, I would rather consider his punctuation discussion as located at the beginning of the general discussion on grammar. As a matter of fact, neither did Wilson (1769) assert that punctuation was part of orthography. Consequently, it cannot be taken for granted that either author discussed punctuation in the ‘orthography’ section. As for the end of the discussion on ‘grammar’, punctuation was regarded as a separate section. Thus, Fenning (1771) devoted the first four sections to the aforesaid four parts of grammar whereas he set punctuation aside. In this way, punctuation alongside abbreviations and numbers, among others, comprised the fifth section of Fenning’s grammar. Likewise, Raine (1771), Corbet (1784), Bicknell (1790), Bingham (1790) and Coar (1796) placed the discussion on punctuation at the end of ‘grammar’. It must be noted that all of the foregoing five authors discussed punctuation immediately after the discussions on capital letters (Coar, 1796), quantity and accent (Raine, 1771), emphasis and cadence (Bingham, 1790), rhetoric and prosody (Bicknell, 1790) or reading (Corbet, 1784) so it might be argued that, in the eyes of these grammar writers, punctuation is related to the preceding subjects. Nonetheless, punctuation and the foregoing subjects were discussed individually or separately to the extent that a link among them cannot be totally ascertained. As stated at the onset of this section, only one author did not place punctuation within that of ‘grammar’ because of the miscellany of themes. Wise’s Newest Young Man’s Companion (1754) dealt with English grammar as well as instructions to write variety of hands with copies in prose and verse, arithmetic and letters, among other topics. In the very case of punctuation, Wise (1754) included and discussed it in the section devoted to “Directions for Writing” (Wise, 1754: 20) wherein subsequent copies in prose and in verse were provided.

~~106~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Therefore, according to its location, punctuation was discussed separately as a component of the written text. In line with the miscellaneous character of Wise’s (1754), Woolgar (1766) discussed English grammar, letters, arithmetic, astronomy and geography, among others. Unlike Wise (1754), however, Woolgar (1766) included punctuation within his discussion on grammar (Woolgar, 1766: 18-20). In any case, overall, the 22 authors defended a combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation. In view of these results, it is likely that most authors regarded ‘grammar’ as a more ‘neutral’ section since eight out of the 22 authors –Fenning (1771), Raine (1771), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Ash (1785), Bingham (1790), Rhodes (1795), Coar (1796) and Hodson (1800)– asserted that punctuation is an art applied to both speech and writing, as shown in section 4.2.“Importance of punctuation”.

4.4.2. Punctuation discussed in two or three sections In 15 editions of six different grammars by five authors –Greenwood (1711), Maittaire (1712), Gough (1760) Ash (1785) and Fogg (1792-1796)– punctuation was discussed in two sections such as ‘Syntax’ and ‘Orthography’; ‘Prosody’ and ‘Syntax’; ‘Grammar’ and ‘Syntax’; ‘Introduction’ and ‘Appendix’; ‘of Contraction’ and ‘Grammatical dissertations’. As for Greenwood (1711), four editions of his Essay towards a Practical English Grammar (1711, 1722, 1729, 1753) and three editions of his Royal English Grammar (1761, 1763, 1770) discussed punctuation within two different sections such as ‘Syntax’ and ‘Orthography’. Interestingly, Greenwood (1737) changed his mind in the first, fourth and sixth editions of his Royal English Grammar, i.e., the 1737, 1750 and 1759 editions, since he included punctuation in the ‘grammar’ section instead of the ‘Orthography’ one. Nonetheless, his change of location of the punctuation discussion will be dealt with in section 4.4.7. Despite his change of location, Greenwood (1711) stayed faithful to the combination of grammatical and rhetorical approaches to punctuation that he supported in his discussions of the topic. From his very first grammar edition, Greenwood (1711) explained the so-called points or stops in rhetorical terms since they were regarded as (breathing) pauses. In fact, he asserted that the points or stops distinguish either a written or a spoken sentence (Greenwood, 1711: 225) so that they were used to “mark the Distance of Time in pronouncing […]”

~~107~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

(Greenwood, 1711: 225) and to distinguish “Words from Words, and Sentences from Sentences” (ibid). For instance, when dealing with the comma, Greenwood (1711) stated that it is “the shortest Pause or resting in Speech, and is used chiefly in distinguishing Nouns, Verbs and Adverbs.” (Greenwood, 1711: 227). The correct transmission of the sense to avoid confusion and misunderstandings is the reason why Greenwood (1711) stressed the importance of distinguishing the members of the sentence. In line with his combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation, Greenwood (1711) discussed his four points or stops, i.e. the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period, as well as his “Six Kinds of Marks or Points” (Greenwood, 1711: 225-226), i.e. the parenthesis, the parathesis, the erotesis, the ecphonesis, the emphasis and the irony, within the section called ‘Syntax’ whereas the remaining nine marks, i.e. the hyphen, the apostrophe, the caret, the asterisk, the index, the obelisk, the section, the paragraph and the quotation mark, were discussed within the section called ‘Orthography’. These placements were justified by Greenwood (1711), who acknowledged that though punctuation “properly belongs to that Part of Grammar that is called Syntax” (Greenwood, 1711: 225), there are “[…] several Marks or Points that do more strictly relate to the Orthography, or writing of Words.” (Greenwood, 1711: 257). As a matter of fact, save the apostrophe, which is said to “denote some Letter or Letters to be left out, for quicker Pronunciation […]” (Greenwood, 1711: 257), there was no room for rhetorical explanations in the orthographical section. Therefore, I argue that punctuation marks are sorted into two sections because they have different functions. Likewise, in the second and sixth editions of his Practical Grammar of the English Tongue, i.e., the 1760 and 1792 editions, Gough located his discussion on punctuation in the sections devoted to ‘Syntax’ and ‘Orthography’. In broad terms, Gough divided his grammar into the following parts: - Part I. Orthography - Part II. Analogy - Part III. Etymology - Part IV. Syntax - Part V. Prosody or Orthoepy Within the orthographical part, Gough (1760) devoted the chapter entitled “Chapter VII. Of Stops, and other Marks used in Writing” (Gough, 1760: 12) to

~~108~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

discuss the four stops or points –the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period–, the five marks that denote a different pronunciation –the interrogation, the exclamation, the parenthesis, the parathesis and the emphasis– and the marks – the hyphen, the apostrophe, the quotation marks, the caret, the index, the section, the asterisk, the obelisk and the parallels. Unlike Greenwood (1711), Gough (1760) only discussed the stops or points in rhetorical terms on the grounds that “[t]he use of these, in distinguishing the Parts of a sentence, will be treated of in Part IV” (Gough, 1760:13). Accordingly, Part IV or ‘Syntax’ included the grammatical rules for the use of the four stops or points given that “[w]e have in the first Part declared the Pauses to be observed at the Points or Stops in reading, and are now come to the proper Place to treat of their Use in distinguishing the Parts of a Sentence.” (Gough, 1760: 87). We infer that Greenwood (1711) and Gough (1760) alike supported the combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation but, unlike Greenwood (1711), Gough did not confer importance to the mis-transmission of the sense in the text. That is, when discussing the members of the sentence that the stops or points distinguish, Gough (1760) dealt with the four stops or points in semantic terms, as in the definition of the colon: The Colon may generally be used when a foregoing Member is perfect Sense, and the following Member doth not so immediately depend upon it; being sense in itself (or * [sic] nearly so) but a Continuation of the Sense of the former […]. (Gough, 1760: 89).

Nonetheless, no mention was made by Gough (1760) to the usefulness of punctuation marks in the prevention of misunderstandings or confusion of sense. In short, in view of the inventory of punctuation marks and its discussion in Greenwood (1711) and Gough (1760), I might argue that the differences between both are conspicuous (s.v. Table 6 below). The former considered the syntactical section to be restricted to those punctuation marks that play a role in written texts, that is, his four points and his six “Kinds of Marks or Points” which denote syntactic relationships and intonation patterns. Consequently, there would be no room for the so-called marks which were more related to orthography. By contrast, the latter gathered his three different groups of punctuation marks in the orthographical section on the basis that the ‘Syntax’ section was devoted to discuss in depth the grammatical rules for the use of the four stops or points.

~~109~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

With regard to his English Grammar (1712), Maittaire discussed punctuation marks in the sections entitled ‘Syntax’ and ‘Prosody’. In line with Greenwood (1711), Maittaire (1712) advocated the combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation to clarify the sense of the text. Consider his words: These eight following Stops or marks of Rest and Distinction are to be very carefully observed by the Reader, not only for the ease of breath, but also for the better understanding of the sense. (Maittaire, 1712: 21).

Despite the grammatical and rhetorical explanations provided, Maittaire (1712) gave preference to the grammatical functions of the stops over the rhetorical ones since the former were present all over the 13 pages that comprised his section, in contrast with the latter which were summarized in one single paragraph. That is, the rhetorical functions of stops were explained as follows: The use of the four Stops, Comma, Semicolon, Colon and Point, is chiefly to distinguish the more considerable Governments and Clauses of the Sentence; and the Proportion or Measure of time, which i [sic] would give to these, should be this; the rest of a Semicolon, double to that of the Comma; and so the Colon to the Semicolon, and the Point to the Colon: As in Musick (sic), an Art allied to Grammar […], the proportion is between a Quaver and a Crotchet, a Crotchet and a Minim, a Minim and a Semibreve. (Maittaire, 1712: 201).

As shown in the first quotation, Maittaire distinguished eight stops –the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and exclamation marks, the parenthesis and the parathesis (i.e., square brackets)– which were discussed in detail in the section entitled ‘Syntax, or the Doctrine of Sentences’ (Maittaire, 1712: 136). The reason why the foregoing stops were located in ‘Syntax’ is that this section is devoted to the doctrine of sentences “which stops serve to distinguish” (Maittaire, 1712: 22), hence the primacy of the grammatical functions of stops. Similarly, in ‘Prosody, or the Doctrine of Syllables’ (Maittaire, 1712: 12), Maittaire (1712) discussed six other notes or “marks of pronunciation” such as the spirit, the time, the accent, the apostrophe, the hyphen and the dieresis since, according to this author, they “belong to syllables” (Maittaire, 1712: 15). Obviously, considering the book section, notes were discussed in rhetorical terms. As a way of illustration, consider the accent: “[t]he Accent or Tone is the due tuning or pronunciation of some syllable more than the rest” (Maittaire, 1712: 20). What is more, at the end of the prosodic section, Maittaire (1712) stated that some further explanations of both the spirit –which comprises the following symbols (ʼ) and (ʽ)– and the accent–which comprises the short (˘) and the long (ˉ) accents–

~~110~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

were included within the ‘Etymology or the Doctrine of Words’ section (Maittaire, 1712: 22) on the grounds that they properly belong to the “several parts of speech […]” (ibid). The several parts of speech that Maittaire (1712) discussed were the article, the noun, the pronoun, the verb, the participle, the particles, the adverb, the preposition and the conjunction. In some of these parts of speech, explanations of the accented and unaccented words were provided as well as explanations of the spirit, i.e., the breathing which “is twofold, either Soft and small, or Harsh and thick; the last is suppressed by h; the first is never expressed, but always supposed to be, where the other is not: as ear, hear, art, hart.” (Maittaire, 1712:15). All in all, as Greenwood (1711) and Gough (1760), Maittaire (1712) distinguished two groups of punctuation marks: stops and notes, i.e. marks. Unlike the preceding authors, Maittaire (1712) located his notes in the prosodic section which reaffirmed the rhetorical approach to such punctuation marks. Nonetheless, Gough (1760) and Maittaire (1712) alike reserved the syntactical section to discuss the points or stops mainly in grammatical terms (s.v. Table 6 below). Fogg’s Elementa Anglicana (1792-1796) was split into two volumes. In the first volume we can find his discussion on punctuation in Chapter V, the chapter that encompasses ‘contractions’, ‘similarity’ and ‘abbreviations’ (Fogg, 1792-1796: 50). Moreover, only one punctuation mark was discussed in the chapter devoted to prosody. In the second volume, Fogg (1792-1796) discussed punctuation further in the form of a dissertation which was included within the section entitled ‘Grammatical Dissertations’ (Fogg, 1792-1796: 135). With regard to the first volume, Fogg (1792-1796) placed his discussion on punctuation in ‘Contractions, Similarity, and Punctuation’ which is a rather uncommon section on the basis that ‘Syntax’, ‘Orthography’, ‘Reading and Speaking’, among others, were the book sections that authors preferred. In this section, Fogg (1792-1796) discussed two groups of punctuation marks that were referred to as stops and marks. The former comprised the following four: the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period. The latter encompassed the following nineteen marks: the interrogation and the exclamation marks, the parenthesis, the quotation marks, the hyphen, the apostrophe, the caret, the paragraph, the section, the asterisk, the obelisk, the parallels, the index, the accent, the dieresis, the breve, the dash, the brackets and the brace. The stops were

~~111~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

explained in rhetorical, grammatical and semantic terms given that the comma, for instance, was described as a stop at which the reader counts one and as the point that sub-divides the semantically-complete parts already distinguished by a semicolon (Fogg, 1792-1796: 61, 64). With regard to the marks, as Fogg (1792- 1796) stated, they are used in writing (Fogg, 1792-1796: 65) so, accordingly, marks were explained mainly in orthographical terms save the dieresis, the accent and the dash. Fogg (1792-96) did not explain the function of the accent since he referred the reader to the chapter devoted to prosody (Fogg, 1792-1796: 66) on the grounds that prosody is “that part of Grammar which explains and regulates” the accent, i.e., “the stress of voice” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 68). Finally, with regard to the dieresis and the dash, the former denotes a sound and the latter is a pause (Fogg, 1792-1796: 65-66). As regards his second volume, Fogg’s grammatical dissertations delved into the universal grammar, the history of the language, prosody, versification, reading and delivery, derivation and punctuation, among other subjects. His dissertation on the stops and marks opened with the statement that a written text is not orthographically complete until punctuation marks are inserted (Fogg, 1792-1796: 181). Basically, Fogg’s dissertation analyzed in greater detail the rules for the punctuation marks included within the first volume. In short, unlike Greenwood (1711), Maittaire (1712) and Gough (1760), Fogg (1792-1796) discussed his two groups of punctuation marks, i.e., his stops and marks, in just one section though he considered the accent to be intrinsically related to prosody, hence its inclusion in this section (s.v. Table 6 below). Therefore, it is likely that Fogg (1792-1796) discussed the stops and marks together because of the rhetorical nature of some marks like the dash and the dieresis, as shown above. Finally, Ash (1785) discussed punctuation in two sections: ‘Introduction’ and ‘Appendix’. Given that Ash (1761) has already been analyzed above in section 4.4.1., a briefer discussion is provided here. Of the 24 editions of his Grammatical Institutes, the 1785 edition included a further account of punctuation in the Appendix. Interestingly, in all of his 24 editions, the same system of punctuation was defended which comprised four points or stops –explained only in rhetorical terms– and ten characters used in writing (cf. Appendix: Branch 2 a), type 5.a) – explained in rhetorical and orthographical terms. Ash’s whole punctuation system

~~112~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

was discussed within the section entitled “Introduction to the Grammatical Institutes” (Ash, 1785: xix-xxii) and only the four points or stops were further analyzed, mainly in grammatical terms, within the appendix (Ash, 1785: 162- 172). Therefore, in view of the explanatory nature of the punctuation discussion included in the latter, it might be argued that punctuation was not split into two actual sections. In the form of summary, Table 6 below displays the differences encountered among the authors who placed punctuation in two or three different sections.

~~4 points or stops + Syntax Combination of rhetorical and Greenwood 6 kinds of marks or points grammatical explanations~~

9 marks Orthography No room for rhetorical explanations 4 stops or points Syntax Grammatical principles or rules for the distinction of parts of a sentence 4 stops or points Gough + 5 marks denoting different Orthography Rhetorical explanations of the stops or pronunciations points + 9 marks Combination of rhetorical and 8 stops Syntax grammatical explanations but, in general, Maittaire stops serve to distinguish sentences 6 notes or marks of Prosody They only belong to the syllables / pronunciation prosody 4 stops Contractions, - Stops explained in rhetorical, + Similarity and syntactic and semantic terms 19 marks Punctuation - Marks explained in Fogg orthographical terms (except dash and dieresis) accent Prosody The accent regulates the stress of voice

4 points or stops - Points explained in rhetorical + Introduction terms Ash 10 characters - Characters explained in orthographical terms 4 points or stops Appendix Further discussion of the 4 points or stops, mainly in grammatical terms Table 6. Summary of the authors who placed punctuation in two sections

4.4.3. Punctuation discussed in syntactical and orthographical sections In total, in 108 editions of 32 grammars by 30 authors punctuation is properly located in ‘Syntax’61, ‘Sentences’ or ‘Orthography’, which are sections that strengthen the written nature of punctuation. In five grammar editions,

61 According to Sundby et al. (1991: 7-8), under ‘Syntax’, which was a synonym with ‘construction’ (Anon. or Brightland and Gildon (ECEG), 1711: 141) and ‘joining’ (Kirkby, 1746: 115), punctuation, examples of bad English and grammatical figures were discussed but they were not necessarily confined to it. 113

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

punctuation was located in the section ‘Of sentences’ and in 22 editions punctuation was placed in the section entitled ‘Syntax’. Moreover, 42 editions did include punctuation but it was placed after the section ‘Of sentences’ so that I might argue that in the eyes of two grammarians, i.e. Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711) as well as Lowth (1762), punctuation was related to such a section. In 39 editions punctuation was located in the ‘Orthography’ section.62 As a way of illustration, consider Table 7 below.

Sections ‘Syntax’ ‘Of sentences’ After ‘sentences’ Orthography Loughton 1734, Turner 1739, Anon. or Gildon Fisher 1753, 1735, 1744, 1749 1741 and Brightland 1754, 1762, Elphinston 1765, Johnston 1772 (ECEG) 1711, 1763, 1767, 1766 McGowan 1773 1712, 1712, 1768, 1771, Burn 1766, 1772, Steele 1782 1712, 1714, 1779, 1780?, 1778, 1786 1721, 1735, 1785, 1788, Buchanan 1767, 1746, 1759 1789, 1789, 1769, 1780, 1792 Lowth 1762, 1791, 1794, Jones 1771 1763, 1763, 1795, 1795, 1800 Anon. 1788b 1764, 1764, Martin 1754, Chown 1788 1765, 1765, 1757, 1766 Coote 1788 1769, 1769, Buchanan 1762, Brittain 1788, 1771, 1772, 1768, 1784 Authors 1790 1774, 1775, Ward 1766?, Burr 1797 1775, 1775, 1767 Hornsey 1793 1778, 1778, Metcalfe 1771 1780, 1781, Carter 1773 1782, 1783, Shaw 1778, 1785, 1783, 1785, 1788 1786, 1786, Mennye 1785 1790, 1791, Anon. or Hall 1793, 1794, (ECEG) 1789 1795, 1795, Wilson 1792, 1799, 1799 1797 Wright 1794 Postlethwaite 1795 Stapleton 1797 J.G. 1799 Total number of 11 4 2 14 authors Total number of 22 5 42 39 editions Table 7. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Syntax, ‘Of sentences’, after ‘Sentences’ and ‘Orthography’

~~As far as the sections ‘Syntax’, ‘Sentences’ and ‘Orthography’ are concerned, among the authors that supported the location of punctuation in these sections,~~

62 Interestingly, according to Yáñez-Bouza and Rodríguez-Gil (2013: 156), ‘Orthography’ and ‘Syntax’ were the most commonly cited parts of grammar in ECEG (c. 305 items, c. 245 items) and, between the two, “the former was regarded as a primary part of grammar in more than half of the sources” (c. 180 items) (ibid). 114

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Martin (1754) stood out since he defined punctuation as the art of composition, as discussed in section 4.2. “Importance of punctuation”, so punctuation is: […] The making a Discourse of Periods and Sentences, in like Manner as Words are form’d of Syllables and Letters. In order therefore to compose, write, or read a Discourse well on any Subject, the Doctrine of Sentences and Periods; and the Business of Pointing must be first understood. (Martin, 1754: 128).

In his view, Martin (1754) stated that the doctrine of sentences and periods is intrinsically linked with punctuation on the basis that punctuation is aimed at dividing “a discourse into sentences […] and members of sentences” (Burn, 1766: 181) according to its different points and marks. Hence the definition of a simple sentence as a type of sentence that requires no punctuation marks except for a period at its end (Coote, 1788: 260). By contrast, a compound sentence requires the frequent insertion of the comma (Coote, 1788: 261) given that the latter distinguishes the simple sentences of which the former is composed (ibid). Although all the authors stressed the syntactical function of punctuation, the rhetorical one was not denied. On the contrary, according to Coote (1788: 260), the underlying reason for the use of punctuation marks in the text is “[…] the mark[ing] [of] the different pauses which the sense and pronunciation require” (Coote, 1788: 260). In this way, breathing pauses are tantamount to shorter or longer members of a sentence, that is, as Elphinston (1765) asserted: “[…] we see the natural gradation of the pauses, according to the members of which the sentence is composed […]” (Elphinston, 1765: 187). Thus, as a case in point, the comma: Represents the shortest pause. It is therefore used in those parts of a sentence which are so immediately dependent on each other, as to be only one degree removed from that close connexion [sic] which requires no pause in the reading or recital. (Ibid).

Broadly speaking, 12 out of the 15 authors that located punctuation in the sections ‘Syntax’ and ‘Of sentences’, defended the combination of grammatical and rhetorical approaches to punctuation and, what is more, six out of these 15 authors emphasized the importance of punctuation in the correct transmission of the sense in the text, such as Burn (1766: 181), Buchanan (1767: 179), Steele (1782: 151), Coote (1788: 260), Brittain (1788, 1790) and Burr (1797: 47). Likewise, as far as the orthographical section is concerned, four out of the 14 authors, i.e., Fisher (1753: 37), Carter (1773: 30-31), Wilson (1792: 33) and Postlethwaite (1795: 36),

~~115~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

stressed that the transmission of the sense is the main aim to attain when punctuating the text. For instance, Postlethwaite (1795) claimed that the absence of punctuation marks in the text entails some inconveniences on the grounds that: […] No one can write either elegantly, or always intelligibly, without duly observing of it; for the Omission, or the Misplacing of a Point, will frequently quite alter the Sense (Postlethwaite, 1795: 36).

The only three authors that did not defend the sole combination of grammatical and rhetorical approaches to punctuation were Buchanan (1767), Jones (1771) and McGowan (1773). Interestingly, as for Buchanan (1767), the four grammar editions included within ‘Syntax’ in Table 7 above are editions of his Regular English Syntax (1767, 1769, 1780, 1792). Only the fifth edition, i.e. the 1792 edition, discussed the hermeneutic approach to punctuation and, by contrast, the remaining editions defended a combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation with a nod to sense. With regard to Jones (1771), it must be stated that the author’s discussion on punctuation was brief albeit coherent. Jones’s discussion on the so-called points was brief since they were explained in one paragraph but, in view of the fact that his punctuation discussion was placed in ‘Syntax’, Jones (1771) attempted to be as coherent as possible with his approach to punctuation and, as a result, he explained the points in grammatical terms. As shown in section 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”, McGowan (1773) is the sole author that supported exclusively the rhetorical approach to punctuation and who stressed, besides, the usefulness of punctuation marks in the clarification of the sense in the text. Consider his words: As in speech we express our ideas by various motions of head and hand, in order to excite attention in the hearer; so in writing, which is the image of speech, we make use of certain marks to denote the duration of time to be observed in reading, to prevent confusion, or obscurity that the sense of the writer may be more clearly comprehended by the reader. (McGowan, 1773: 124-125).

As quoted above, speech and writing are correlated with each other so much so that the comprehension of the text by the reader depends on the proper use of punctuation marks by the writer. Anyway, although McGowan (1773) supported only the rhetorical approach to punctuation, I might argue that he included punctuation in the section entitled ‘Of sentences’ in view of the fact that punctuation marks are graphic conventions used in sentences.

~~116~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

As argued at the beginning, in the eyes of many grammar writers, punctuation was related to the section ‘Of sentences’, hence its location after this section. As a case in point, consider Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711). In the nine editions of his Grammar of the English Tongue, the discussion on punctuation was placed within the fourth part of the grammar and, in particular, it was placed after the chapter entitled ‘Of sentences’. As regards the location of punctuation in the ‘Orthography’ section, Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792) justified its inclusion in this section. Unlike Greenwood (1711)63 who asserted that points belong to ‘Syntax’ (Greenwood, 1711: 225) whereas marks, to ‘Orthography’ (Greenwood, 1711: 257), Fisher and Wilson discussed both stops and marks together in a single section, that of Orthography, wherein the letters are discussed. According to both authors, punctuation marks and letters must be regarded as rudiments of grammar and, thereby, they must be analyzed from the very beginning of the grammar to be able to handle further discussions in more complex sections like ‘Syntax’. In this way, Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792) argued that: Several Grammarians refer the treating of Stops and Marks till after Syntax, not considering them absolutely necessary to be known till the Scholar be fit to apply them to their proper Purposes in Writing: But as a more early Knowledge of such of them as are used as Intervals in Reading, &c. is found to be the most expeditious Method in forwarding a Learner, by giving him the Sense of what he reads, (which, without such Knowledge of them, might be confused and unintelligible) it is thought proper to give them a Place here (Fisher, 1753: 37; Wilson, 1792: 35).

In this sense, Vorlat (2007: 519) asserted that “the most extensive description of 18th-century teaching methods is to be found in Ann Fisher’s A New Grammar (1750)” since, according to Fisher (1750), grammar must be taught to children from the very first moment they are able to read and, gradually, orthography should be drilled year after year on the grounds that it “cannot be pushed too hard with beginners” (Vorlat, 2007: 519). So as Ward (1766) asserted, punctuation is “[…] introductory to the Knowledge of Language” (Ward, 1766: 16). All in all, since letters are part of orthography; syllables, of prosody; words, of etymology;

~~63 See section 4.4.2. above. 117~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

and sentences, of syntax, a gradual 64 approach to grammar was advocated (Fisher, 1753: 1-2). Curiously, among the fourteen authors that placed punctuation in ‘Orthography’, Buchanan (1762), Mennye (1785) and Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) were the only authors that did not support the combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation but others. With regard to Mennye (1785), no punctuation rules were provided (cf. section 4.5. “Systems of Punctuation”). Therefore, considering the title, which was “[t]he points, accents, references, &c.” (Mennye, 1785: 74), the location of his punctuation discussion in the orthographical section gives us the hint that the common denominator of the diverse punctuation marks is their written nature. In any event, in view of the lack of explanations provided, it is virtually impossible to identify the sort of approach to punctuation that Mennye (1785) supported. As regards Buchanan (1762) and Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789), the former’s three editions of his British Grammar –1762, 1768 and 1784– as well as the latter’s English Grammar (1789) were hermeneutic in character (cf. section 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”). Neither author placed his discussion on punctuation within two sections, e.g. ‘Rhetoric’ and ‘Syntax’. Actually, this twofold placement would have reinforced the importance of the rhetorical and grammatical approaches in the hermeneutic punctuation.

4.4.4. Punctuation discussed in rhetorical and prosodic sections In 22 editions of ten different grammars by nine authors altogether, punctuation was discussed in rhetorical and prosodic sections such as ‘Quantity and Accent’, the ‘Reading’ or ‘Reading and Speaking’ sections and the ‘Prosody’ one, in contrast to the grammars in which punctuation was located in syntactical sections. Furthermore, as discussed in section 4.4.2., Maittaire (1712) and Fogg (1792- 1796) acknowledged the prosodic nature of some punctuation marks. As a way of illustration, Table 8 displays the number of authors and editions in which punctuation was discussed in rhetorical and prosodic sections.

64 According to Percy (1994: 131), Fenn’s the Child’s Grammar (1794?/1819) and Mercy’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1799) provided the inexperienced instructress with a teaching method whereby the parts of the volumes increased in difficulty as well. 118

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Sections ‘Quantity and ‘Rules for ‘Reading’ Prosody accent’ reading and speaking’ Story 1783, Webster 1785 Crocker 1775 Corbet 1743 1793 Crocker 1786 Anon. 1788a Smetham 1774 Meikleham 1781, 1795, 1797 Authors Webster 1784, Murray 1795, 1796, 1797a, 1797b, 1798a, 1798b, 1799a, 1799b, 1800 Gardiner 1799 Total number of 1 2 2 6 authors Total number of 2 2 2 16 editions Table 8. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Quantity and Accent’, ‘rules for Reading and Speaking’, ‘Reading’ and ‘Prosody’

In broad terms, punctuation, pronunciation, emphasis, versification and accent were the subjects included within the book section devoted to either rhetoric or prosody. For instance, Meikleham (1781) argued at the beginning of his grammar that prosody is “the true pronunciation of words, comprehending Accent, Quantity and Emphasis.” (Meikleham, 1781: 9) and he dealt with punctuation after having discussed quantity, emphasis and cadence. In the cases of Story (1783) and Murray (1795), punctuation was discussed alongside versification. In the light of the justifications and explanations provided by the nine authors, it seems that punctuation marks were primarily linked with breathing pauses in reading. According to Story’s (1783) general definition of punctuation, punctuation is “the art of distinguishing in writing, by certain marks, the pauses or stops in a sentence” (Story, 1783: 66). That is, as Crocker (1775) also asserted, not only stops but also notes, marks, accents, emphasis and cadence must be applied correctly when reading a text (Crocker, 1775: 59). It must be noted that the reading of a text encompassed both silent reading and reading aloud (cf. section 3.3. “Punctuation Conventions”), hence the emphasis laid on pronunciation and cadence in Crocker (1775). That is why Murray asserted that punctuation aids the sense and the pronunciation of a sentence (Murray, 1799a: 219). Moreover, Webster (1785) advised readers against pausing in the midst of the member of a sentence on the grounds that “[…] the sense requires the words to be closely connected in pronunciation.” (Webster, 1785: 8). Likewise, the

~~119~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period were primarily defined as breathing stops in reading, which help to mark the sense in the written text as well (Corbet, 1743: 92-93; Smetham, 1774: 27; Story, 1783: 66; Murray, 1799a: 219- 220). Thus, the secondary function of stops was the transmission of the sense in the text by means of the distinction of the members of the sentence. Accordingly, the nine authors advocated the combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation (cf. section 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”). Consider, for example, Webster (1785): The characters we use as stops are extremely arbitrary and do not always mark a suspension of the voice. On the contrary, they are often employed to separate the several members of a period, and show the grammatical construction. (Webster, 1785: 7).

What is more, three out of the nine authors –Corbet (1743: 93), Smetham (1774: 27) and Anon. (1788a: 33)– stressed that the use of punctuation in the text is essential to prevent confusion of the sense of the text since, as Smetham (1774) claimed: “without their [of stops] necessary aid, writing would be nothing but confusion, and reading unintelligible” (ibid). In accordance with the approaches advocated by the nine authors, the punctuation systems encompassed one group of punctuation marks –Webster (1785), Anon. (1788a), Murray (1797b)– , two –Corbet (1743), Smetham (1774), Meikleham (1781), Gardiner (1799)–, three –Story (1783, 1793), Crocker (1775, 1786), Meikleham (1795, 1797), Murray (1798b, 1799b, 1800)– and four –Murray (1795, 1796, 1797a, 1798a, 1799a). Actually, the inventory of punctuation marks was comprehensive since points (the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period), notes (the interrogation and the exclamation marks) and marks (the parentheses, the brackets, the paragraph, the section and the index, among others) were included. Strikingly, even though the foregoing punctuation marks were discussed as separate groups, all of them were located within a single rhetorical or prosodic book section. Among the nine authors that located the discussion on punctuation in rhetorical and prosodic sections, Crocker’s (1775) inventory and functions of the so-called points were conspicuously rhetorical. According to Crocker (1775), there are seven stops or points such as the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the double period, the paragraph and the double paragraph (Crocker, 1775: 59). The

~~120~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

last three are discussed in detail in the section 4.6. “Function(s) of each punctuation mark” but, broadly speaking, they answer to the following breathing principle: The Double period is held nearly twice as long a[s] the period. The Paragraph is held nearly twice the time of the double period. The Double paragraph is held twice the time of the paragraph, or nearly so. (Crocker, 1775: 61).

The importance that Crocker (1775) conferred to the rhetorical approach to punctuation led him to widen the scope of his punctuation discussion since in one out of his three Practical Introduction to English Grammar and Rhetoric, i.e. the edition of 1775, punctuation was located in the section entitled ‘Reading’ whereas in his further edition of 1786, punctuation was located in ‘Reading and Speaking’. In any case, when reading the very title of Crocker’s grammar, the reader might foresee the significant weight of rhetoric in his work. Finally, with regard to Murray (1795), it must be noted that punctuation became a significant section, above all in his later grammar editions. According to Murray (1799), grammar comprises four distinct parts: orthography, etymology, syntax and prosody (Murray, 1799a: 1). Within the fourth part, i.e. prosody, punctuation, versification and pronunciation were discussed. In five editions of his English Grammar (1795, 1796, 1797a, 1798a and 1799a) and in four editions of his Abridgment (1797b, 1798b, 1799b and 1800) punctuation was placed either within or immediately after ‘Prosody’. With regard to the latter, in two editions of his English Grammar –the editions of 1798 and 1799- as well as in three editions of his Abridgment –1798, 1799 and 1800- punctuation was still regarded as a prosodic component but it deserved to be dealt with separately. Consider his justification: As punctuation is intended to aid the sense, and the pronunciation of a sentence, it might, perhaps, have been discussed under the article of Syntax, or of Prosody: but the extent and importance of the subject, as well as the grammatical knowledge which it presupposes, seem to warrant us in preferring to make it a distinct and subsequent article (Murray, 1798a [4th ed.]: 219).

Actually, the discussion on punctuation was a sort of sub-section of the prosodic one. For the first time in Murray’s editions, punctuation was an ‘article’ in itself which comprised five chapters in accordance with the four main points and the marks. In this way, the first chapter dealt with the comma; the second, with the semicolon; the third, with the colon; the fourth, with the period; and the fifth, with

~~121~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

“[…] the dash, notes of interrogation, and exclamation, &c.” (Murray, 1799a: 230). Therefore, given that Murray’s discussion on punctuation was not located actually in a different section, Murray (1795) was consistent, to a certain extent, with the treatment of the subject in his nine editions. In other words, punctuation was regarded as an indispensable component of prosody in every edition of his Grammar and of his Abridgment regardless of the three different systems of punctuation presented in the grammar editions (cf. Appendix: Branch 1, type 1; Branch 3 b), type 7.b; Branch 4 a), type 2). All in all, considering the thirty authors that located punctuation in grammatical and orthographical sections like the ones discussed so far in contrast with the nine authors that located punctuation in rhetorical sections, I argue that the grammatical function of punctuation marks was becoming more important than the rhetorical one.

4.4.5. Punctuation discussed in the form of appendix or supplement Ten authors altogether placed their discussions on punctuation at the end of their grammars. In total, punctuation was included in 30 editions of 11 different grammars in the form of supplement or appendix. As a way of illustration, consider Table 9 where the total amount of authors and their editions are displayed.

Sections Supplement Appendix ‘Back matter’ Newbery 1745, 1748, Anon. 1746, 1760 Anon. 1770- 1752, 1752, 1769, Crocker 1772 1771 1770, 1776 Ireland 1784 Bullen 1797 Authors Anon. or Newbery Webster 1787, 1787?, 1790, (ECEG) 1776 1792, 1792, 1794, 1796, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1800 Devis 1791, 1793, 1795 Harrison 1794, 1800 Total number of 2 6 2 authors Total number of 8 20 2 editions Table 9. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Supplement’, ‘Appendix’ and ‘Back Matter’

~~Ireland (1784: 276), for example, wrote an essay on punctuation and included it in the appendix. Interestingly, neither author justified the location of punctuation in~~

~~122~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

the final section of his grammar. Whatever the reason, it might be argued that punctuation, alongside other subjects, was regarded as additional information, hence its placement in either the supplement or the appendix. As a case in point, consider Harrison (1794) who dealt with punctuation in the appendix. Paying attention to his appendix in which a table of verbs, grammatical figures and punctuation was included, it might be argued that rules of punctuation were considered to be the final step before putting the theory into practice in his “ […] Praxis on the Grammar, with Examples of True and False Construction” (ibid). Albeit necessary, the discussion on punctuation was not as important as the discussions on word classes and syntax because punctuation was consigned to the appendix whereas word classes and syntax were included in the main body of his grammar. Likewise, Bullen (1797) discussed word classes and syntax in the main body of his Rudiments of English Grammar and consigned punctuation to the back matter. Unlike Harrison (1794), the discussion on punctuation was placed after the exercises on parsing and before the appendix so its location suggests that both authors, Harrison (1794) and Bullen (1797), had, to a small extent, differing approaches to grammar. That is, whereas Harrison (1794) preferred to give an account on the diverse grammatical components before their implementation, Bullen (1797) preferred to consolidate the explanation of basic grammatical notions by means of praxis before giving an account on further information. Nonetheless, in the case of Newbery (1745), for instance, though punctuation was placed at the end of his grammar, it was not considered to be secondary to other grammatical subjects. In seven editions of his Grammar made Familiar and Easy, Newbery (1745) devoted the supplement to ‘Quantity and Accent’ (1745: 114), ‘notes and points used in writing and printing’ (1745: 118), ‘rules for Reading and Emphasis’ (1745: 125), ‘Reading Verse’ (1745: 129), ‘the different Letters used in printing as well as capitals’ (1745: 133), ‘Abbreviations’ (1745: 136) and ‘Numbers and Figures’ (1745: 140). Given that basic grammatical elements like accent, points and notes were discussed primarily so as to deal with reading secondarily, it is likely that, in the eyes of Newbery (1745), the knowledge of punctuation marks was prior to the instructions on reading and speaking properly. In this way, in order to know which are the pauses to be observed well in reading, as Newbery (1745: 125) asserted, it is necessary that: “[b]efore we begin with

~~123~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Reading, it will be proper to take notice of several Sorts of Points and Marks that are used in Writing and Printing” (Newbery, 1745:118). In any case, authors mingled grammatical and rhetorical issues within the supplement, the appendix and the ‘back matter’. Accordingly, by and large, seven out of the ten authors defended the combination of both rhetorical and grammatical approaches to punctuation with the aim of transmitting the sense of the text correctly (cf. Newbery, 1745: 119; Anon. 1746: 151; Anon. or Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 44; Ireland, 1784: 276; Harrison, 1794: 99; Bullen, 1797: 106). As discussed in the previous section, Crocker (1772) took a conspicuous rhetorical approach to punctuation in his former grammar editions although he did not deny the grammatical component of punctuation. All in all, as Harrison (1794) wittily asserted, in essence, points “have respect both to grammar and to elocution” (Harrison, 1794: 98-99), regardless of the location of their discussion in grammar. Finally, with regard to exceptions, Anon. (1770-1771) was one of the two authors that supported exclusively the rhetorical punctuation to transmit the sense of the text (cf. 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”). In fact, according to Anon. (1770- 1771), the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks were the stops “to be observed in reading” (Anon. 1770-1771: 111), hence the transmission of the sense in reading by means of punctuation marks. Consider the following passage, “[t]he sense will shew [sic] where the Emphasis or Stress is to be laid - - Read as you would speak when you are properly moved”. (Anon. 1770-1771: 112). Therefore, in view of his assertions, I expected Anon. (1770-1771) to include his punctuation discussion within rhetoric sections such as ‘Quantity and Accent’, ‘Rules for Reading and Speaking’, ‘Reading’, or ‘Prosody’, as shown in Table 9. That is the reason why I might argue that the book section wherein his punctuation discussion was placed was not congruent with the approach he supported.

4.4.6. Punctuation discussed in ‘syllables’ and ‘letters’ In three grammars punctuation was located in ‘Syllables’ and in ‘Letters’. I must remark that these three grammars could have been included in the foregoing discussions of the ‘Prosody’ or ‘Orthography’ sections but, in the light of their

~~124~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~different titles, I preferred to discuss them separately. In Table 10 the authors and their categorization are displayed.~~

Sections ‘Syllables’ ‘Letters’ Authors Metcalfe 1777 Miller 1795 Ward 1777 Total number 2 1 of authors Total number 2 1 of editions Table 10. Total number of authors in whose editions the punctuation discussion was located in the sections ‘Syllables’ and ‘Letters’

As shown in Table 10 above, Metcalfe (1771) placed punctuation in the section entitled ‘Orthography’ that comprised six chapters devoted, in general, to letters, vowels, diphthongs, syllables and spelling (Metcalfe, 1771: 1-24). In his later edition, i.e. 1777, Metcalfe did not use the term ‘orthography’ since ‘letters’ was used in its stead on the grounds that the latter was “[…] more plain and easy to the learner” (Metcalfe, 1777: 1). What is more, instead of gathering the discussions on letters, syllables, spelling and punctuation in one section, Metcalfe (1777) split them into two different sections. In this way, letters were discussed in the first section whereas the remaining, in the second. With regard to the systems of punctuation presented, Metcalfe (1777) changed his former system to a small extent since only two punctuation marks were added: the final quotation mark and the ellipsis. Therefore, on the whole, Metcalfe’s system of punctuation comprised four marks that distinguished the members of the sentence –the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period–, three other marks –the parenthesis, the interrogation and the exclamation marks– and eighteen other usual marks in writing (s.v. Appendix: Branch 3 b), type 10). With regard to the approach to punctuation, Metcalfe (1777) defended a combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches, as in his former edition. All in all, despite the modifications, it must be noted that we are not dealing with an actual change of book section since punctuation was still part of the orthography section. With regard to Ward (1777), he did not overtly account for the location of his punctuation discussion in the section entitled ‘Syllables’. According to this author,

~~125~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

grammar is divided into four parts, i.e. letters, syllables, words and sentences.65 Each of these parts corresponds to orthography, prosody, etymology and syntax respectively (Ward, 1777: 2) on the grounds that: Orthography being the Art of Spelling, has Respect to Letters; Prosody is due Pronunciation, and respects Syllables; Etymology treats of the Origin and Derivation of Words; and Syntax teaches the Construction of Words in Sentences (ibid).

In his own words, each of the aforesaid parts of grammar, i.e. letters, syllables, words and sentences, “make up the whole system of Grammar” so that they “comprehend all that can be produced on the Subject” (ibid). In the light of Ward’s assertion, punctuation was discussed in the section devoted to syllables, i.e. prosody, due to its relationship to pronunciation. Within the section ‘Syllables’, Ward (1777) dealt with rules for dividing syllables (1777: 29-30), points or stops and marks used in writing (1777: 30-33) and capital letters (1777: 33). As shown in the above quotation, given that ‘syllables’ or ‘prosody’ are related to pronunciation, punctuation was considered prosodic in essence, hence the only explanation given of the four points or stops, i.e. the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period, which was not grammatical: “[…] The Period is an Intermission of the Voice double of the Colon; the Colon is double of the Semicolon; and the Semicolon is double of the Comma.” (Ward, 1777: 31). Despite their location in Ward’s grammar (1777), his twelve marks used in writing were explained in both rhetorical and grammatical terms. By and large, except for the accent, the interrogation, the exclamation and the parenthesis, the remaining marks were accounted for in strictly grammatical terms. For instance, whilst the accent was defined solely in prosodic terms as a “Manner of Pronunciation” (Ward, 1777: 32), the interrogation mark was defined as a mark used after a question is asked. Besides, the latter denotes an elevation of the voice and is nearly equal to the time of the semicolon, the colon and the period (Ward, 1777: 31). All in all, though punctuation marks encompass both points and marks, I might argue that, according to Ward (1777), the basic four points are primarily

65 According to Michael (1970: 184), when discussing the constituent parts of grammar, grammar writers used two different ways in accordance with either a logical or a literary inclination: (i) the older tradition which described the parts of grammar in terms of material, i.e. letters, syllables, words and sentences; (ii) the alternative tradition which described them in terms of processes, i.e. orthography, etymology, syntax and prosody. The former was favored by medieval and renaissance grammarians whereas the latter, by English grammarians following Lily (1527).

~~126~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

prosodic whereas the so-called marks stand for an enlarged inventory of the basic four points. Interestingly, both Metcalfe (1777) and Ward (1777) differed in their conceptions of ‘syllables’. Whilst the former considered ‘syllables’ to be part of Orthography, the latter considered them to be part of Prosody. As for the section entitled ‘Letters’, Miller (1795) introduced punctuation to readers in this section in order to devote another one to it at the end of the main body of his grammar. Actually, though punctuation was discussed doubly in the main body of his Concise Grammar of the English Language, I do not consider that Miller (1795) was discussing punctuation in two distinct sections, unlike the authors discussed in the section 4.4.2. “Punctuation discussed in two or three sections”. As discussed, Metcalfe (1777) Ward (1777) and Miller (1795) stated that grammar “treats of letters, syllables, words and sentences” (Miller, 1795: 9). Although Miller (1795) did not parallel explicitly the foregoing to any of the four parts of grammar, i.e. orthography, prosody, etymology and syntax, the parallelism was implicit. Within the section ‘Letters’, Miller (1795) asserted that points are used in writing (Miller, 1795: 21), so his assertion was in line with the graphic nature of the ‘orthography’ section. Furthermore, Miller (1795) discussed both points and marks together in a single grammatical section so as to discuss further grammatical explanations in the section entitled ‘Punctuation’. In this way, Miller (1795) was in line with Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792) to a certain extent since the three of them treated punctuation marks as rudiments that had to be explained at the beginning of the grammar. Thus, unlike Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792), Miller (1795) opened his section ‘Punctuation’ stating that “[t]he points which are used in writing have been mentioned in page 21” (Miller, 1795: 77) and then he provided a further account of the subject. Broadly speaking, Miller (1795) defended the combination of both grammatical and rhetorical approaches to punctuation in the section ‘Letters’. Of the six points –the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks–, only the first four were defined in strict rhetorical terms given that Miller (1795) deployed the theory of the breathing pauses whereby the longest pause, i.e. the period, requires a pause twice as long as the colon, and so on (Miller, 1795: 21). The inventory of ten marks that Miller (1795) included as well (cf. Appendix: Branch 2 c), type 2) was defined in orthographical terms,

~~127~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

except for the parenthesis and the accent. With regard to the former, Miller (1795) asserted that it inserts one sentence in another and such a sentence must be read “in quicker time, and with a lower tone, than the sentence in which it stands, and with a pause somewhat longer than that of a comma.” (Miller, 1795: 21-22). As for the latter, the accent was obviously related to prosody given that it marks the stress of the voice upon a syllable (Miller, 1795: 22). As for the section ‘Punctuation’, it was devoted exclusively to the aforesaid four points, which were discussed in strict syntactical terms. In fact, in the latter section, Miller (1795) claimed that punctuation is “the art of marking sentences with their proper points” (ibid). All things considered, as discussed so far, Metcalfe (1777) and Ward (1777) included punctuation in ‘Syllables’ whereas Miller (1795), in ‘Letters’. Even though the first two authors agreed on the heading, the book sections wherein punctuation was located were actually different since whereas Ward (1777) paralleled ‘syllables’ to ‘Prosody’, Metcalfe (1777) treated punctuation as a component of ‘Orthography’. As a result, the former considered punctuation marks to be prosodic in nature whereas the latter, orthographical or graphic in nature. In line with Metcalfe (1777), Miller (1795) also considered punctuation marks to be orthographical. All of them acknowledged the importance of the so- called marks which, in general, were defined in graphic terms in view of their relation to the written text. Unlike Metcalfe (1777) and Ward (1777), Miller (1795) emphasized the grammatical function of the four primary points by discussing them in a separate section entitled ‘Punctuation’.

4.4.7. Change of location of the punctuation discussion in later grammar editions Five authors –Greenwood (1737), Buchanan (1767), Brittain (1788), Crocker (1775), and Webster (1784, 1785)– were the only authors that placed the discussion on punctuation in different sections in later editions of their grammars. Except for Brittain (1788), the change of location of the punctuation discussion entailed a change of contents as far as inventory of marks and approach to punctuation are concerned. As for Brittain (1788), punctuation was included in the second part of his Rudiments which was devoted to regimen, use of verbs, orthography and

~~128~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

construction (Brittain, 1788: 87). Likewise, in his second edition, the second part of his grammar was devoted to the aforementioned issues. However, unlike his first edition, in Brittain’s second edition, i.e. the 1790 edition, punctuation was explicitly placed within the sub-section entitled “Syntax; or Rules for Construction” (Brittain, 1790: 148). Although the author specified the section to which punctuation belongs, the contents were not modified. As for changes related to the inventory of marks, Greenwood (1737) Crocker (1775) and Webster (1785) were the authors that modified not only the location of the punctuation discussion but also the systems of punctuation presented in their grammars. With regard to Greenwood (1737), as discussed in the section 4.4.2., the six editions of his Royal English Grammar differed in the location of punctuation. That is, on the one hand, in three editions punctuation was discussed within two sections, ‘Syntax’ and ‘Orthography’; on the other, in the remaining three editions punctuation was discussed within the sections ‘Syntax’ and ‘Grammar’. In broad terms, in the six editions the system of punctuation comprised four points or stops that direct what kind of pause is to be observed, seven marks or points that denote various manners of pronunciation and nine marks or points that do more strictly relate to the orthography or writing of words (cf. Appendix: Branch 3 f), type 1). On the contrary, in the four editions of his Essay towards a Practical English Grammar, punctuation was discussed in two sections, ‘Syntax’ and ‘Orthography’. Moreover, unlike Greenwood’s six editions of his Royal English Grammar, his Essays presented a system of punctuation that comprised the foregoing punctuation marks except for one of the marks that denote various manners of pronunciation, i.e. the braces (cf. Appendix: Branch 3 e), type 1). Therefore, changes are found in editions of the same grammar and between different grammars. In any case, despite the above changes, Greenwood was consistent in the sense that the book sections wherein punctuation was placed were grammatical and orthographical in essence. As regards Crocker (1772), punctuation was discussed in almost the same section in the three editions of his Practical Introduction. Crocker (1772) placed his punctuation discussion within the appendix under the title “Rules for Reading” (Crocker, 1772: 59). In two later editions, i.e. 1775 and 1786, Crocker placed punctuation within the main body, specifically in the seventh chapter entitled “Rules for Reading” (Crocker, 1775: 57). Therefore, in view of the location of

~~129~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

punctuation within the appendix and the main body, it might be argued that Crocker placed punctuation in two different sections. However, punctuation was treated as part of the rules for reading so, actually, the section might be considered to be the same. Besides, Crocker (1772) introduced some changes as far as inventory is concerned. That is, in Crocker (1772), the punctuation system comprised seven stops or points, two notes and nine marks whereas in Crocker (1775 and 1786) two other punctuation marks were discussed, the parallel lines and the “dagger”. Despite this later addition of marks, Crocker did not change the content of his three grammar editions. In line with Crocker’s section entitled ‘Rules for Reading’, in Webster (1785) punctuation was located in the section “Rules for Reading and Speaking” (Webster, 1785: 7) though in his 1784 edition, Webster had placed punctuation in ‘Prosody’ (cf. Table 8 above). Besides, in the remaining 11 editions of his Grammatical Institute (cf. Table 9 above), the punctuation discussion was located in the appendix. What is more, the 1785 edition also presented a system of punctuation that differed from the one presented in the remaining twelve editions of his grammar. That is to say, a system of punctuation that comprised one group of four punctuation marks was presented in his 1785 edition (cf. Appendix: Branch 1, type 1) whereas a system that comprised one group of four points or pauses and another group of three points that denote a different modulation of the voice was presented in the remaining twelve editions (cf. Appendix: Branch 2 a), type 2). In short, it might be argued that the punctuation system presented in the 1785 edition was consistent with the book section wherein punctuation was located. That is to say, the four points or pauses were part of the rules for reading and speaking so that the rhetorical nature of the foregoing punctuation marks was given primacy. In fact, Webster (1784) had previously assigned punctuation to prosody. On the contrary, the inventory of punctuation marks was widened in the remaining editions and, accordingly, it was discussed in a more ‘neutral’ section, e.g., the appendix. Finally, Buchanan is the author that defended the same punctuation system in two different works such as A Regular English Syntax and A British Grammar (cf. Appendix: Branch 3 g), type 2). These two grammars differed not only in the book section wherein punctuation was located but in the approach to punctuation given that in the four editions of the Regular English Syntax punctuation was

~~130~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

located in ‘Syntax’ whereas in the three editions of the British Grammar, it was located in ‘Orthography’ (cf. Table 7 above). In the light of the heading ‘Regular English Syntax’, punctuation was obviously located in the syntactical section but, curiously, in his British Grammar, the location of punctuation was changed and no reason was given. Interestingly, in the three editions of the British Grammar and in the 1792 edition of the Regular English Syntax, the approach to punctuation was hermeneutic. By contrast, three editions of the Regular English Syntax defended the combination of rhetorical and grammatical approaches to avoid the confusion of the sense in the text. As shown in section 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”, the hermeneutic approach to punctuation combined rhetoric and syntax to convey semantic nuances in the text. Notwithstanding, the rhetorical component of punctuation was given supremacy over the syntactical one. All in all, given that Buchanan (1762) located his discussions on punctuation in two different sections, ‘Orthography’ and ‘Syntax’, it might be argued that Buchanan preferred book sections that were not rhetorical in nature maybe because of the semantic nuances of the writer, which are inherent to the written text.

4.4.8. Concluding remarks Most authors asserted that grammar is “[t]he Art of speaking and writing the English Language correctly and properly” (Metcalfe, 1777: 1), which has four parts: orthography, prosody, etymology and syntax. Each of these dealt with letters, syllables, words and sentences, respectively. Being part of speech and writing, punctuation was discussed in rhetorical and grammatical sections, hence its discussion in orthography, syntax and prosody. As shown so far, though some authors agreed on the book sections wherein punctuation was located, they disagreed on the parts of grammar to which the sections belong, not least Metcalfe (1777) and Ward (1777), who had differing conceptions of the section ‘Syllables’. In 108 grammar editions the discussion on punctuation was located in syntactical or orthographical sections. By contrast, in 22 grammar editions the discussion on punctuation was located in book sections that were devoted to reading and speech. Interestingly, in 30 editions the punctuation discussion was located at the end of the grammar in the form of appendix or supplement. Moreover, in 60 editions, punctuation was not included in any specific section but in the general discussion

~~131~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~on grammar. In the form of summary, the circular chart 1 below displays the foregoing sections wherein punctuation was located and the percentages they represent on the whole.~~

~~Circular Chart 1. Sections and percentages~~

In fact, the twenty-two authors as well as the ten that decided to locate punctuation either in the general discussion on grammar or in the appendix might have considered its placement as a more ‘neutral’ one. Interestingly, despite the numerous inventory of grammar editions discussed, only seven modified the book section wherein punctuation was placed. Besides, to a smaller extent, punctuation was discussed in two sections within the same grammar. In any case, it must be noted that punctuation was never placed in etymology. All things considered, as I will discuss later in section 4.7. “Generic Terms”, the inclusion of a wider array of punctuation marks might justify the location of the discussion on punctuation in orthographical sections. That is, most authors included a long inventory of the so- called marks whose functions were accounted for in graphic terms. As a result, due to the written nature of most marks, orthographical sections prevailed over rhetorical ones. Notwithstanding, it must be noted that the location of the discussion on punctuation in orthographical and syntactical sections did not affect the content of the discussion since the so-called points were explained mainly in rhetorical terms, as I will explain in section 4.7.

~~132~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4.5. Systems of punctuation As far as systems of punctuation are concerned (see Chapter 3), I have classified the systems into five branches in accordance with the grouping of punctuation marks in each grammar. As can be seen in Appendix A, the first branch is based on the assemblage of punctuation marks into one group; the second branch, into two groups; the third branch, into three groups; the fourth, into four groups and the fifth, into five groups. A “group” is a set of punctuation marks that share the same function, like the interrogation and the exclamation marks, and the parenthesis found in Lowth (1762: 172. Branch 2, Type a) 2 in my classification) which are grouped as the three points that denote a modulation of the voice. A “type” is the punctuation model that every author creates. Within the same branch, some types of systems of punctuation share the same number of marks but the difference lies in the marks that each type includes and in their classification. As cases in point, within Branch 2, the difference between the punctuation systems presented by Brittain (1788. Branch 2 a) Type 3.a) and Anon. (1791. Branch 2 a) Type 3.b) lies in only one punctuation mark. Their punctuation systems comprised four points –the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period- and four other signs. As for the latter group, although both authors agreed on the parenthesis, the interrogation and the exclamation marks, they disagreed on the hyphen –in the case of Brittain (1788)– and the apostrophe, in the case of Anon. (1791). Likewise, Anon. (1770-1771), McGowan (1773) and Burr (1797) advocated exactly the same punctuation system, that of Branch 1, Type 2, in which the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks were considered to be ‘points’, ‘stops’, ‘marks’ or ‘pauses’ in reading. By contrast, Stapleton (1797) considered that the foregoing ‘points’ formed two groups of punctuation marks, that is, the first four were points that divide a discourse into periods and express pauses whereas the remaining two were points “sufficiently explained by their names” (Stapleton, 1797: 3). That is why Stapleton (1797) is included within Branch 2 (Branch 2 a) Type 1), unlike the former authors. It is noteworthy that, as displayed in Appendix A, both the terms and the assemblage of several punctuation marks into one cell are authorial. That is to say, some authors like Ash (1761. Branch 2 a) Type 5.a) assembled and labelled both the asterisk (*) and the obelisk († ‡ ǁ) (sic) as “several notes” (Ash, 1761: xxiv).

~~133~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Hence the clustering of both punctuation marks into one cell in the punctuation system advocated by Ash (1761). Contrarily, Stirling (1735: no p. Branch 2 a) Type 8) enumerated and discussed the aforementioned punctuation marks separately, that is, he treated both the asterisk and the obelisk as two distinct punctuation marks, hence their location in individual cells in the punctuation system that he advocated. In total, within the first branch I have outlined 8 types of punctuation; within the second, 33 types; within the third, 26 types; within the fourth, 2 types and within the fifth, one type. Therefore, in 238 editions, 71 types can be outlined altogether. The classification of punctuation marks that I have made is based on the authorial distinction of types of punctuation marks. In this way, many authors have distinguished between two or more categories so that punctuation marks were not treated alike. Branch 2 comprises seven categories labelled as “a), b), c), d), e), f) and g)” and in each of them the primary set of punctuation marks is different. By “primary”, I mean the set of punctuation marks that the author discusses as a separate and fixed group that share the same function in contrast with the set of punctuation marks discussed as a secondary or extra group. Thus, within Branch 2, category (a) includes types that have four primary punctuation marks, (b) types that have five primary punctuation marks, (c) six primary punctuation marks, (d) seven primary punctuation marks, (e) eight primary punctuation marks (f) ten primary punctuation marks and g) seventeen punctuation marks. The same methodology is applied to Branch 3. Besides, in the vast majority of types the fixed set of punctuation marks is followed by the plus symbol (+) and four hyphens (----). I have made use of four hyphens in order to show that the set of punctuation marks varies according to every author. By way of illustration, consider Branch 3. This branch includes eight categories, “a), b), c), d), e), f), g) and h)”, and the first of these is represented as: “a) 4 + 2 + ----”. In this specific instance, the primary set of punctuation marks comprises four, two other punctuation marks form a different group and the third group is not fixed, hence the four dashes. With regard to the authorial distinction of types of punctuation marks, I must clarify that there were some peculiarities. On the one hand, some authors like Green (1779) and Hornsey (1793) –both of them included within Branch 1– titled their punctuation sections as ‘Of Punctuation’ (Green, 1779: 38. Branch 1, Type

~~134~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

7; Hornsey, 1793: 55. Branch 1, Type 5). Neither author used any generic term to sort marks into different groups. That is the reason why I have classified Green (1779) and Hornsey (1793) into Branch 1. On the other hand, some authors, not least Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711), Stirling (1735) and Ash (1761), distinguished between two groups of punctuation marks in the very headings of their punctuation sections. That is, Anon. or Gildon and Brightland

~~(ECEG) (1711) distinguished between stops or pauses and marks in writing~~

(Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG), 1711: 127. Branch 2 a) Type 9.a), Stirling (1735) distinguished between stops and marks (Stirling, 1735: last page. Branch 2 a) Type 8), and Ash (1761) distinguished between points or stops and other characters in writing (Ash, 1761: xxii. Branch 2 a) Type 5.a), however, neither author stated clearly which punctuation marks were considered to be ‘stops’ and which were considered to be ‘marks’ or ‘characters’. Therefore, both the section headings and the further definitions of each punctuation mark had to be used to outline the systems of each of the aforementioned authors. The most peculiar instance is that of Mennye (1785. Branch 1, Type 8). Paying attention to his section heading, we could classify punctuation marks into “[…] points, accents, references, &c.” (Mennye, 1785: 74). However, Mennye (1785) provided the inventory of marks without any definition of them whatsoever. Consequently, I could not categorize his punctuation marks in accordance with the aforesaid categories of his section heading and therefore he has been included in Branch 1. That is, from Mennye’s long inventory of punctuation marks, I cannot infer which punctuation marks were considered to be ‘references’, for instance, and which were considered to be ‘points’ (Branch 1, Type 8). As for the currency of these Branches throughout the eighteenth century, Branch 1 –which embraces those grammars that gather punctuation marks in one group– comprises 13 grammar editions by 12 authors: Barker (1733), Anon. (1770-1771), Jones (1771), McGowan (1773), Green (1779), Corbet (1784), Mennye (1785), Webster (1785), Anon. (1788a), Hornsey (1793), Burr (1797) and Murray (1797b). Only one grammar advocated the first branch in the 1730s; four grammars, in the 1770s; five grammars, in the 1780s and three grammars, in the 1790s. As a result, Branch 1 was not supported in five decades such as the 1710s, 1720s, 1740s, 1750s and 1760s until it was recovered in the 1770s.

~~135~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Secondly, Branch 2 –which embraces those grammars that gather punctuation marks in two groups– comprises 148 grammar editions by 41 authors: Anon. or~~

Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711), Maittaire (1712), Loughton (1734), Stirling (1735), Turner (1739), Corbet (1743), Anon. (1746), Fisher (1753), Martin (1754), Ash (1761), Lowth (1762), Burn (1766), Ward (1766), Hodgson (1770), Johnston (1772), Carter (1773), Smetham (1774), Ward (1777), Bettesworth (1778), Shaw (1778), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Steele (1782), Meikleham (1781), Ireland (1784), Webster (1784), Anon. (1788b), Brittain (1788), Chown (1788), Bingham (1790), Francis (1790), Pape (1790), Anon. (1791), Fogg (1792-1796), Wilson (1792), Wright (1794), Miller (1795), Rhodes (1795), Stapleton (1797), Bullen (1797), Gardiner (1799) and J.G. (1799). Five grammar editions by the same author, i.e., Anon. or Gildon and Brightland

(ECEG) (1711), and one grammar by Maittaire (1712) advocated the second branch in the 1710s; one grammar edition, in the 1720s; five grammar editions, in the 1730s; seven grammar editions, in the 1740s; five grammar editions, in the 1750s; 19 grammar editions, in the 1760s; 22 grammar editions, in the 1770s; 34 grammar editions, in the 1780s and 49 grammar editions, in the 1790s. As a result, the highest frequency of Branch 2 took place in the second half of the eighteenth century. In the first half of the century, this branch was supported in 24 grammar editions in contrast with the 124 editions of the second half. Branch 2 was conspicuously supported throughout the whole century given that grammar editions were present in every decade. Furthermore, the 1790s was the decade in which the second branch was mostly advocated given the 49 grammar editions by nineteen authors. Thirdly, Branch 3 –which embraces those grammars that gather punctuation marks in three groups– comprises 62 grammar editions by 24 authors: Greenwood (1711), Lowe (1737), Wise (1754), Gough (1760), Buchanan (1762), Woolgar (1766), Wilson (1769), Fenning (1771), Metcalfe (1771), Raine (1771), Burn (1772), Crocker (1772), Story (1783), Hodgson (1787), Coote (1788), Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789), Bicknell (1790), Devis (1791), Harrison (1794), Meikleham (1795), Postlethwaite (1795), Coar (1796), Murray (1798b) and Hodson (1800). One grammar advocated the third branch in the 1710s; two grammars, in the 1720s; two grammars, in the 1730s; four grammars, in the 1750s; 13 grammars, in the 1760s; 12 grammars, in the 1770s; eight grammars, in

~~136~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

the 1780s and 20 grammars, in the 1790s. As a result, in the first half of the eighteenth century Branch 3 was supported in five grammars whereas it was mostly supported in the last half of the century. The 1790s was the decade in which Branch 3, as Branch 2, was mostly advocated. Fourthly, Branch 4 –which embraces those grammars that gather punctuation marks in four groups– comprises 13 grammar editions by three authors: Newbery (1745), Anon. or Newbery (ECEG) (1776) and Murray (1795). This branch was supported from the 1740s onwards. In the 1740s and 1750s there were two grammar editions per decade; in the 1760s there was one grammar; in the 1770s, three and in the 1790s, five. As a result, Branch 4 was present mainly in the 1790s. Finally, Branch 5 was proposed only in two grammar editions by Elphinston (1765) in the 1760s, therefore it contained a rare grouping of punctuation marks that did not root. Table 11. Itemization of grammar editions per decades

~~1700- 1711- 1721- 1731- 1741- 1751- 1761- 1771- 1781- 1791- Total~~

~~10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1800 No. of~~

~~editions~~

~~Branch 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 3 13~~

~~Branch 2 0 6 1 5 7 5 19 22 34 49 148~~

~~Branch 3 0 1 2 2 0 4 13 12 8 20 62~~

~~Branch 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 5 13~~

~~Branch 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2~~

~~Total 0 7 3 8 9 11 35 41 47 77~~

All in all, in view of the aforesaid results, Branch 2 was the most followed by eighteenth-century grammarians not only in terms of sheer numbers but also in terms of a continuous presence all throughout the century. The high support that authors professed to Branch 2 could be related to the simplicity of the systems of punctuation that this branch comprises. That is to say, instead of categorizing

~~137~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~punctuation marks according to three, four or five criteria, Branch 2 categorizes them according to two.~~

4.5.1. The most repeated systems of punctuation In relation to the 71 systems of punctuation I have encountered in 238 editions, only 8 out of 71 systems were advocated by more than one author. As regards Branch 1, Types 1 and 2 were supported by three authors each. The former is advocated by Jones (1771), Webster (1785) and Murray (1797b). The latter is advocated by Anon. (1770-1771), McGowan (1773) and Burr (1797). With regard to Branch 2 a) Types 2; 5.a; 9.a and c) Type 7 are supported by eight, two, two and four authors, respectively. The aforesaid Type 2 was pioneered by Lowth (1762) and it was subsequently supported by Burn (1766), Ward (1766), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Meikleham (1781), Webster (1784), Anon. (1788b) and Bingham (1790). Type 5.a was pioneered by Ash in 1761 and it was subsequently advocated by Francis in 1790. Type 9.a was pioneered by Anon. or Gildon and

Brightland (ECEG) (1711) and it was subsequently supported by Steele (1782). Finally, Type 7 was pioneered by Fisher (1753) and it was subsequently advocated by Carter (1773), Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792). As to Branch 3, Types b) 6.a and g) 2 were supported by two authors each. Type b) 6.a was pioneered by Wise (1754) and it was subsequently supported by Woolgar (1766). Type g) 2 was pioneered by Buchanan (1762) and it was subsequently supported by Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789). All things considered, the most frequently recurring branch was the second since the most repeated systems followed it. Within this branch, the systems proposed by Lowth (1762) and Fisher (1753) were the most widespread since the former was subsequently adapted by seven authors and the latter by three. In both systems of punctuation, punctuation marks were classified into two groups. In the case of Lowth (1762), marks were divided into four points (the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period) and three other points that denote a modulation of the voice (the exclamation mark, interrogation mark and the parenthesis). In the case of Fisher (1753), marks were divided into six stops that are used as intervals in reading (the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation) and eighteen marks (the parenthesis, the quotation marks, the hyphen and the apostrophe, among others). Curiously, the

~~138~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

authors who advocated Lowth’s system did not necessarily agree with Lowth’s terms and descriptions. For instance, when labelling the four punctuation marks that comprise the first group, Ward (1766), Anon. (1788b) and Bingham (1790) made use of other terms such as ‘marks’, ‘stops’ and ‘pauses’, respectively. Likewise, though Ward (1766) acknowledged the existence of the three punctuation marks that comprise the second group, he did not state that such marks denoted a different modulation of the voice. Finally, with regard to Branch 1, the systems of punctuation proposed by Anon. (1770-1771) and Jones (1771) were followed by three other authors each. As to the former, the system comprises the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks. As for the latter, in this system, the sole group of punctuation marks comprises the first four punctuation marks of the foregoing system. Therefore, in view of the systems proposed by Fisher (1753), Lowth (1762), Anon. (1770-1771) and Jones (1771), I argue that authors supported simple systems of punctuation. In this sense, Lowth (1762) stated that: […] If a greater number of marks were invented to express all the possible different pauses of pronunciation; the doctrine of them would be very perplexed and difficult, and the use of them would embarass [sic] than assist the reader. (Lowth, 1762: 156).

According to Lowth (1762), the pauses that punctuation marks express are variable and so are the different degrees of connection between the parts that a sentence comprises (1762: 155). In view of this lack of exactness, the rules laid down on the subject serve for a general direction (Lowth, 1762: 156). Therefore, aimed at assisting the reader, only four points –the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period- are used to express the pauses and to mark the degrees of connection in the sentence since, as quoted above, the implementation of a wider set of punctuation marks might be difficult. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that Lowth (1762) reflected, to a certain extent, what Salmon (1988: 296-298) labelled as the four-term system type ii. That is, as for the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period, unlike Salmon (1988), Lowth (1762) deployed neither “small branch” nor “full branch” but “comma” and “colon” when referring to the comma and the colon, respectively. Moreover, the system of punctuation proposed by Lowth (1762) included a higher number of

~~139~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~punctuation marks that were subdivided into the so-called group of points which denote a different modulation of the voice.~~

4.6. Function(s) of each punctuation mark The total number of punctuation marks retrieved from the corpus is twenty-nine. In this table, punctuation marks as well as the terms used to designate them are displayed.

~~Marks , comma incision fragment~~

~~; semicolon half colon semmicolon semi-colon half-colon~~

~~: colon~~

~~. full stop point period full-stop full-point full point~~

~~- hyphen note of division dash (connexion) conjunction~~

caret note of ^ induction apostrophe apostrophus apostrophy apostraphe ’ inverted turned quotation quotations comma commas “ or “” inverted double sign of a quotation- commas apostrophe quotation marks

~~() parenthesis interposition parenthasis~~

~~parathesis exposition chrochets crotchets~~

~~[] brackets hooks crotchet crochets~~

~~☞ index hand fore-finger fore finger pointing pointing † obelisk spit dagger oblisk (sic)~~

~~§ section division sign of a section asterisk asterism star * paragraph sign of a ¶ paragraph ¡ irony~~

~~140~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~circumflex mean ^ dialysis diaeresis diaresis dieresis~~

~~¨ diaerisis diresis diëresis~~

~~accent acute treble accute short ´ accent base grave ` breve short short time ˘ breve short short time ˇ long long time circumflex ˉ parallels parallel lines section~~

~~ǁ ǁ parallel parallel-lines parallel section notes lines~~

~~{} braces~~

~~” double apostrophe~~

~~note of point of mark of interrogation (sign of) erotesis ? interrogation interrogation interrogation point interrogation interrogation interrogation- interrogative pause of point point interrogation~~

~~point of point of ecphonesis wonder exclamation interjection admiration exclamation~~

~~! pause of exclamation- exclamation mark of (sign of) admiration admiration point point exclamation exclamation~~

~~note of note of admiration exclamation~~

~~dash hyphen stroke line long line break~~

~~ellipsis blank black line small line double period ― omission elipsis pause ellipses elleipsis~~

~~Table 12. Total number of punctuation marks and the terms used to designate them~~

4.6.1. Graphical matters Generally speaking, authors agreed on the symbols that stand for punctuation marks, save those for the parenthesis and the quotation marks. According to Stirling (1735), two symbols, () and [], represent the parenthesis so both are interchangeable. In relation to the quotation marks, the general disagreement on the symbol that stands for them is remarkable. In total, 58 out of 71 systems of

~~141~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

punctuation include the quotation marks. 28 out of 58 systems of punctuation display the use of the double inverted commas at the beginning and at the end of the sentence. By contrast, 23 out of 58 systems display the use of the double inverted commas either at the beginning or at the end of the sentence. In the remaining 7 punctuation systems the use of both single and double quotations is displayed. Therefore, though eighteenth-century authors agreed on the function of the quotation marks, as shown later on, authors disagreed on the symbol that stands for such a punctuation mark. Besides, although very rarely, authors created innovative symbols for notes of reference, the ellipsis and irony. As regards notes of reference, some authors like

Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711: 151) stated that the following symbol (ǂ) stands for the obelisk. Likewise, in relation to the parallels and the section, Shaw (1778: 21) asserted that both punctuation marks share the same symbol, i.e. (ǁ). Nonetheless, Shaw changed his mind in 1785 when he ascribed the symbol (§) to the section. As for the ellipsis, the omission of letters, words and sentences was generally represented by means of the em dash. Notwithstanding, some authors devised innovative symbols, e.g. two or three asterisks (Elphinston, 1765: 194-195; Harrison 1794: 113; 1800: 68), three dots (Elphinston, 1765: 194- 195; Coar: 1796: 222) and three hyphens (Smetham, 1774: 30 and Ash, 1796: xxii). Finally, according to authors from Branches 2 and 3, e.g. Loughton (1749: 134) and Greenwood (1729) respectively, (¡) was the most suitable punctuation mark to indicate irony since German writers made use of such a mark (Greenwood, 1729: 242). This concern for the proper distinction of irony dates back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries since it was discussed by earlier authors such as Wilkins (1668) and Cooper (1687) (Salmon, 1988: 288). Wilkins (1668), for example, stated that irony as well as six others such as the parenthesis, the parathesis (i.e. square brackets), the erotesis (i.e. the interrogation mark), the ecphonesis (i.e. the exclamation mark), the emphasis and the hyphen was a “kind[…] of mark or Interpunction[…]” (Wilkins, 1668: 356). Unlike the former six “kinds of marks”, irony has no “note […] in any of the Instituted Languages” (Wilkins, 1668: 356). Consequently, Wilkins (1668: 356) called for a proper mark to direct in the pronunciation of irony. Cooper (1698: 118) stated that irony must be distinguished by pronunciation and, like Wilkins (1668), he asserted that no

~~142~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

punctuation mark has been devised so far. Nonetheless, unlike Wilkins (1668), Cooper (1698: 118) suggested that the inverted exclamation mark would be suitable to indicate irony. Therefore, neither Greenwood (1737) nor Loughton (1749) were the first authors who proposed to use the inverted exclamation mark in the distinction of irony. Finally, it is worth mentioning that Greenwood (1737: 155; 1770: 154-155) as well as Gough (1760: 13) included the italic font and capital letters as the characters to mark emphasis.

4.6.2. Function and rules for the use of punctuation marks As far as the use of punctuation marks is concerned, the function of each punctuation mark has been analyzed in order to find similarities among the 71 systems of punctuation. Basically, the four punctuation marks that are present in the 71 systems of punctuation are the period, the colon, the semicolon and the comma. Broadly speaking, some functions of eleven punctuation marks such as the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the interrogation mark, the exclamation mark, the parenthesis, the apostrophe, the hyphen, the quotation marks, the dash and the notes of reference were agreed on by authors from the five branches. I have also gathered punctuation rules that were advocated in, at least, three out of the five branches. In view of the fact that Branches 1, 2 and 3 are the most numerous, the codified usages of punctuation marks are encountered mostly in these branches. As a result, the most recurrent punctuation rules of 24 punctuation marks will be described in detail.

4.6.2.1. The comma As Smetham (1774) asserted, the comma is “[…] the most used” punctuation mark (Smetham, 1774: 28), hence the long inventory of rules on the functions of the comma. . Basically, the comma is the shortest pause or stop of voice (Anon., 1788a: 33, Branch 1; Brittain, 1788: 141, Branch 2; Burn, 1772: 213, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 159, Branch 4). . What is more, according to the following rule, which was agreed on by authors from the five branches, at a comma, the reader must stop and count one (Green, 1779: 38, Branch 1; Fisher, 1753: 37, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790:

~~143~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

131, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 119, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). According to Lowth (1762), in order to apply the comma properly in the text, the writer must pay attention to the different nature of a sentence. Thus, Lowth (1762) distinguishes an imperfect phrase, a simple sentence and a compounded sentence (Lowth, 1762: 159-160, Branch 2). As for the imperfect phrase, it is not a sentence per se on the grounds that it “contains no assertion” (Lowth, 1762: 160, Branch 2). Unlike the imperfect phrase, the simple sentence is a sentence in itself since it comprises one subject and one finite verb (Lowth, 1762: 160, Branch 2). As regards the compounded sentence, it comprises two simple sentences or, in other words, it “[…] has more than one Subject or one finite Verb” (Lowth, 1762: 160, Branch 2). . In broad terms, the comma is a segment or the least constructive part of a sentence, i.e. the comma is the smallest member of a sentence (Bingham, 1790: 56, Branch 2; Postlethwaite, 1795: 37, Branch 3). On the basis that the comma marks the smallest division of a sentence, it distinguishes imperfect phrases which are parts of a more perfect sentence (Barker, 1733: 30, Branch 1; Rhodes, 1795: 60, Branch 2; Devis, 1791: 122-123, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 119, Branch 4). For example: “[…] neither Death, nor Life, nor Angels, &c.” (Barker, 1733: 30, Branch 1). . Apart from marking imperfect phrases, the comma also marks simple sentences which are connected together in one compound sentence (Ash, 1785: 168, Branch 1; Lowth, 1762: 166, Branch 2; Fenning, 1771: 156, Branch 3). That is to say, as Fenning (1771) stated, “[the comma] is used to distinguish the smaller parts of a compound sentence” (Fenning 1771: 156, Branch 3). As a way of illustration, consider one of the two quotes from the periodical The Spectator resorted to by Fenning (1771): “The conversation of most men is disagreeable, not so much for want of wit and learning, as of good-breeding and discretion.” (Fenning, 1771: 156, Branch 3). . The comma also distinguishes simple members that are connected by relative pronouns and comparatives. However, the comma is omitted when the simple members are closely connected by a relative and when the members are short in comparative sentences (Ash, 1785: 169, Branch 1; Shaw, 1778: 20, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 125, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 163-164,

~~144~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Branch 4). As for relative pronouns, as a way of illustration, Ash (1785) quoted Pope: Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust; Whose Attributes were Rage, Revenge, or Lust. (Ash, 1785: 170, Branch 1).

As for comparatives, Murray (1795) resorted to the following example: “As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so doth my soul pant after thee” (Murray, 1795: 163, Branch 4). . The comma is used to separate more than two nouns or adjectives that are connected by a copulative or disjunctive conjunctions (Ash 1785: 169, Branch 1; Lowth 1762: 167, Branch 2; Harrison 1794: 103, Branch 3; Murray 1795: 161, Branch 4). To illustrate such a rule, Lowth (1762) quoted Addison: “Raptures, transports, and extasies are the rewards which they confer: sighs and tears, prayers and broken hearts, are the offerings which are paid to them.” (Lowth, 1762: 168, Branch 2). . In relation to nouns, the comma distinguishes nouns in apposition, i.e. “nouns added to other nouns in the same case, by way of explication or illustration, when accompanied with adjuncts […]” (Murray, 1795: 163, Branch 4), (Ash 1785: 168, Branch 1; Gardiner, 1799: 94, Branch 2; Raine, 1771: 211, Branch 3). As a way of illustration, consider the following sentence used by Murray (1795): “Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, was eminent for his zeal and knowledge [.]”(Murray, 1795: 163, Branch 4). . The comma marks the vocative case or, in other words, a direct address as in, for instance: “I am obliged to you, my friends, for your many favours.” (Murray, 1795: 162, Branch 4), (Maittaire, 1712: 196, Branch 1; Burn, 1766: 182, Branch 2; Postlethwaite, 1795: 43, Branch 3; Story, 1783: 67, Branch 3). . Not only does the comma separate nouns but also adverbs that succeed immediately one another (Burr, 1797: 47, Branch 1; Corbet, 1743: 93, Branch 2; Murray 1795: 162, Branch 4). For example: “We are fearfully, wonderfully made […]” or “[s]uccess generally depends on acting prudently, steadily, and vigorously, in what we undertake.” (Gardiner, 1799: 97, Branch 2). Likewise, Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) and Buchanan (1762) asserted that the comma separates adverbs of a contrary meaning, as in “[t]his rogue

~~145~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

swears, lies, steals, &c. sooner, or later, he must be hanged.” (Buchanan, 1762: 50, Branch 3; Anon. or Hall (ECEG), 1789: 50, Branch 3). . In order to identify simple members, the comma separates the participle from the succeeding member (Maittaire, 1712: 197-198, Branch 1; Lowth, 1762: 166-167, Branch 2; Harrison, 1794: 104, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 162, Branch 4). Consider the following sentences as illustrations of this rule: “The whole earth is but a point, compared to the heavens” (Gardiner, 1799: 97, Branch 2) or “[t]he king, approving the plan, put it in execution” (Gardiner, 1799: 97, Branch 2). . The comma distinguishes the absolute case as in, for instance, “[h]is father dying, he succeeded to the estate” (Murray, 1795: 163, Branch 4), (Ash, 1785: 168, Branch 1; Miller, 1795: 79, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 263, Branch 3). . Finally, with regard to intonation, as Salmon (1988: 305) asserted, the comma denotes an elevation in the intonation pattern since the pronunciation must continue suspended till the sentence is completely finished (Hornsey, 1793: 55, Branch 1; J.G, 1799: 35, Branch 2; Coar, 1796: 217, Branch 3). However, Postlethwaite (1795: 44, Branch 3) stated that the comma admits no cadence at all. As noted at the beginning, the inventory of rules on the use of the comma is long since it encompassed the functions of the quotation marks and the apostrophe, as well. As for the former, the quotation marks were included in the functions of the comma on the grounds that they are two inverted commas (Coote, 1788: 264, Branch 3). As to the latter, the apostrophe was included in the discussion of the comma since both punctuation marks are represented by the same symbol despite their differing placements.

4.6.2.2. The semicolon . The semicolon is, first and foremost, a pause that doubles that of the comma (Maittaire, 1712: 201, Branch 1; Lowth, 1762: 158, Branch 2; Story, 1783: 66, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 159, Branch 4). Therefore, according to authors from the five branches, the reader must stop at it while counts two (Green, 1779: 38; Fisher, 1753: 37, Branch 2; Buchanan, 1762: 53, Branch 3; Anon. or Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 44, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5).

~~146~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

. Grammatically speaking, the semicolon distinguishes a member of a sentence that “[…] does not of itself make a complete Sentence, but is followed by something depending on it […]” (Ash, 1785: 170-171, Branch 1; Anon. or Doway (ECEG), 1781: 52-53, Branch 2; Devis, 1791: 123, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 166, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). That is, though the semicolon makes a more complete member of a sentence than the comma does, it still includes a future or after sense, as Smetham (1774: 28, Branch 2) asserted. As a way of illustration, consider the following sentence written by Addison and which was quoted by Lowth (1762): “But as this passion for admiration, when it works according to reason, improves the beautiful part of our species in every thing that is laudable; so nothing is more destructive to them, when it is governed by vanity and folly.” (Lowth, 1762: 169, Branch 2). As Lowth (1762) discussed, the semicolon divides the foregoing sentence into two halves or compound sentences and, within each of them, commas distinguish the simple members (Lowth, 1762: 169, Branch 2). . As a result, linked with the foregoing rule, the semicolon distinguishes either a simple or compound member of a sentence that requires a greater pause than a comma (Ash, 1785: 170, Branch 1; Lowth, 1762: 169, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 128, Branch 3). . Besides, the semicolon is used to mark nouns of opposite or contrary meanings (Corbet, 1784: 37-38, Branch 1; Burn, 1766: 183, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 131, Branch 3), for instance: “Things sacred; things profane; things foreign; things domestic; &c.” (Burn, 1766: 183, Branch 2). . Finally, with regard to intonation, as Salmon asserted (1988: 305), the lack of consensus on the kind of intonation that the semicolon calls for is noticeable. Within Branch 1, according to most authors, the semicolon calls for a little depression of the voice. Within Branch 2, authors advocate an evenness of the voice. Finally, within Branch 3, according to most authors, the semicolon calls for an elevation of the voice.

~~4.6.2.3. The colon . As shown above, authors from the five branches agreed on the rhetorical use of the colon as a pause at which the reader must stop and count three (Anon.,~~

~~147~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

1770-1771: 112, Branch 1; Fisher, 1753: 37, Branch 2; Wise, 1754: 26, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 119, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). . Likewise, the colon is a pause that doubles that of the semicolon (Maittaire, 1712: 201, Branch 1; Ward, 1777: 31, Branch 2; Devis, 1791: 121, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 159, Branch 4). So, basically, the colon is used when a greater pause than a semicolon is still necessary (Ash, 1785: 172, Branch 1; Miller, 1795: 80, Branch 2; Hodson, 1800: 48, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 167, Branch 4). . In both semantic and syntactic terms, authors from the five branches agreed on the nature of the colon as the punctuation mark that distinguishes a sentence that is syntactically complete but whose sense is not. That is, the colon distinguishes “a member of a sentence, whether simple or compounded, that is perfectly finished as not to be connected in construction with the following sentence” (Ash, 1785: 171, Branch 1; Rhodes, 1795: 62, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 131, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 119, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). Thus, as Gardiner (1799: 99, Branch 2) asserted, among others, the colon distinguishes both the member of a sentence and the further illustration or supplemental remark. In order to illustrate such an assertion, Gardiner (1799) resorted to the following sentence: “Nothing is made in vain: every thing has its use.” (Gardiner, 1799: 99, Branch 2). . The colon is used to indicate the introduction of an example (Ash, 1785: 171, Branch 1; Ireland, 1784: 277, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 126, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 167, Branch 4). . Likewise, to a lesser extent, authors from only two branches −2 and 4− asserted that the colon indicates the introduction of a quotation (Gardiner, 1799: 99, Branch 2; Murray, 1795: 167, Branch 4). As a case in point, Gardiner (1799) did not illustrate this rule individually, but she illustrated both this and the previous rule collectively: “The colon is commonly used when an example, a quotation, or a speech is introduced: example, Eve is thus beautifully described by Milton: ‘Grace was in all her steps.’” (Gardiner, 1799: 99, Branch 2). . Moreover, as shown in Gardiner (1799), the colon indicates the introduction of speech (Ash, 1785: 171, Branch 1; Webster, 1784: 138, Branch 2; Bicknell 1790: 126, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 167, Branch 4).

~~148~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

. It must be noted that one of the several uses of the colon was subject to discussion. The colon, the semicolon and the comma were used to mark comparisons and oppositions.66 Consequently, many authors like Carter (1773: 33, Branch 2), Ward (1766: 17, Branch 2) and Smetham (1774: 29, Branch 2), among others, stated clearly that both the semicolon and the colon are generally interchangeable so that the difference between both is not very material. Consider the following quotation from Smetham (1774): […] The most able grammarians allow that the colon and semicolon are frequently used for each other, or indiscriminately; more especially in the Old and New Testament, and many religious books; but though it does not make any very material difference in the sense, it is a great fault not to be very careful: for the more punctual you are in this respect, the more correct will your reading and writing be esteemed. (Smetham, 1774: 29, Branch 2).

As a case in point, Buchanan (1762) stated that “[a]s several Semicolons, so two or more Colons are used, when the Period runs out pretty long […]” (Buchanan, 1762: 52, Branch 3). Likewise, Hornsey (1793) clustered the semicolon and the colon on the basis that both punctuation marks denote a depression of the voice and are placed after sentences of perfect sense (Hornsey, 1793: 55, Branch 1). However, Hornsey (1793: 56, Branch 1) preferred the semicolon over the colon in the distinction of contrarieties or oppositions. By contrast, Miller (1795) took an unbiased stance towards this controversial issue since he considered that “[a]fter all, in using the colon and the semicolon much must be left to the judgment of the writer.” (Miller, 1795: 80, Branch 2). All in all, according to Parkes (1993: 86), the semicolon was widespread from the late sixteenth century onwards. Therefore, the ‘late’ incorporation of the semicolon is likely to account for the disagreement on its use. . As for intonation, the colon denotes a little depression of the voice since the pronunciation continues suspended till the period unfolds the whole (Hornsey 1793: 55, Branch 1; Ash, 1761: xxii, Branch 2; Woolgar, 1766: 19, Branch 3).

~~4.6.2.4. The period . The period is, in broad terms, a full stop (Corbet, 1784: 38, Branch 1; Bettesworth, 1778: 6, Branch 2; Wise, 1754: 26, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745:~~

~~66 See also Salmon (1788: 295). 149~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

119, Branch 4). Being the longest pause (Hornsey 1793: 56, Branch 1; Stapleton, 1797: 3, Branch 2; Wilson, 1769: 2, Branch 3), the period is considered to double that of the colon (Maittaire, 1712: 201, Branch 1; Ward, 1777: 31, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 266, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 159, Branch 4). . In line with the duration of pauses discussed so far, authors from the five branches agreed that, at the colon, the reader must stop whilst counts four (Anon., 1770-1771: 112, Branch 1; Chown, 1788: 15, Branch 2; Bicknell 1790: 131, Branch 3; Anon. or Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 44, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). Although the vast majority of authors agreed on the duration of the period, according to Raine (1771), at the colon the reader stops whilst he counts four so at the period, which doubles the colon, the reader counts eight (Raine, 1771: 210). . Unlike the colon, the period distinguishes a sentence that is wholly complete in itself with regard to both grammatical construction and sense (Ash, 1785: 172, Branch 1; Bullen, 1797: 107, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 266, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 168, Branch 4). Therefore, both semantically and syntactically speaking, such a sentence is independent from the following one (Murray, 1795: 168, Branch 4). For instance, the period is used at the end of short albeit complete sentences, like “[f]ear God. Honour the King. Have charity towards all men.” (Murray, 1795: 168, Branch 4), as well as at the end of a long sentence in which the punctuation marks formerly discussed are also included like: “You say that the Sun stands still, and the Earth moves round it; yet their apparent motions are contrary to these: therefore I conclude that our senses cannot be good judges of real motion.” (Bullen, 1797: 107, Branch 2). . Besides marking the end of a sentence, the period is used in contractions and abbreviations (Burn, 1766: 185, Branch 2; Burn, 1772: 217, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 168, Branch 4), as in “M.S. P.S. N.B. A.D. O.S. N.S.” (Murray, 1795: 168, Branch 4). . Finally, as far as intonation is concerned, the period requires a greater depression of the voice than a colon because the period unfolds the whole (Hornsey 1793: 56, Branch 1; Rhodes, 1795: 69, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 128, Branch 3). Therefore, as Salmon (1988: 305) also asserted, whilst the

~~150~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~comma denotes an elevation in the intonation pattern, both the colon and the period denote a fall.~~

4.6.2.5. The interrogation mark . The interrogation mark is used, by general consensus, at the end of a question (Green, 1779: 38, Branch 1; Bettesworth, 1778: 6, Branch 2; Meikleham, 1795: 25, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 120, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187- 188) as in, for instance, “[―] [w]ho did it? What Book is that? How do you do, Sir? &c.” (Bettesworth, 1778: 6, Branch 2). . In rhetorical terms, the interrogation mark is paralleled to a period with regard to the duration of pause (Anon. 1770-1771: 112, Branch 1; Loughton, 1734: 149, Branch 2; Hodgson 1787: 159, Branch 3; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). Accordingly, at both the period and the interrogation mark, the reader must stop whilst he counts four. . Nonetheless, in four out of the five branches, some authors did not ascertain the exact duration of its pause since, as Murray (1795: 170, Branch 4), among others, stated, the interrogation mark is “ […] indeterminate as to [its] quantity or time, and may be equivalent in that respect to a semicolon, a colon, or a period, as the sense may require. […]” (Bingham, 1790: 57, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 126, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 170, Branch 4). . Despite the lack of ascertainment previously mentioned, it was generally agreed on that the interrogation mark denotes an elevation of the voice in speaking (Anon., 1770-1771: 112, Branch 1; Burn, 1766: 186, Branch 2; Burn, 1772: 218, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 170, Branch 4).

4.6.2.6. The exclamation mark . As the authors of the five branches agreed on, the exclamation mark distinguishes a sentence that expresses admiration, emotion, surprise, passion and the like (Burr, 1797: 48, Branch 1; Steele, 1782: 152, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 266, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 170, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5) as in, for instance, “[w]hat harmony!” (Elphinston, 1765: 188, Branch 5). . Both the exclamation and the interrogation marks were discussed together, hence the identical definitions of both punctuation marks as “indeterminate as

~~151~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

to [their] quantity or time so [they] may equivalent to a semicolon, colon, period or comma” (Murray, 1795: 170, Branch 4), as discussed above (Shaw, 1778: 22, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 266, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 170, Branch 4). . Unsurprisingly, the duration of pauses was subject to discussion since most, but not all, authors stated that at both the exclamation and the interrogation marks, the reader must stop whilst he counts four on the basis that both punctuation marks parallel the period (Anon., 1770-1771: 112, Branch 1; Turner, 1739: 36, Branch 2; Anon. or Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 44, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 187, Branch 5). By contrast, Smetham (1774: 28, Branch 2) asserted that the reader must count six. All in all, as some authors asserted, the duration of the pause ascribed to both the exclamation and the interrogation marks varies but the duration must exceed that of a comma, at the very least (Coote, 1788: 266, Branch 3). . Finally, as for intonation, at the exclamation mark, the reader must elevate the voice in order to convey amazement, agitation and energy (Anon. 1770-1771: 112, Branch 1; Pape, 1790: 12, Branch 2; Wilson, 1769: 2, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 170, Branch 4).

4.6.2.7. The inverted exclamation mark . As discussed in section 4.6.1. “Graphical matters”, the exclamation mark is inverted to denote irony (Loughton, 1749: 134, Branch 2; Greenwood, 1729: 242, Branch 3). Though the concern for the distinction of irony was not widespread, the authors who discussed it agreed on the use of the inverted exclamation mark. As a way of illustration, consider Greenwood (1729): […] And though there be not (for ought I know) any Note designed for this, in any of the instituted Languages, yet that is from their Deficiency or Imperfection: For if the chief Force of Ironies does consist in the Pronunciation, it will plainly follow, that there ought to be some Mark for Direction, when Things are to be so pronounced. (Greenwood, 1729: 242, Branch 3).

After having reasoned that irony must be distinguished by a punctuation mark, Greenwood (1729) considered both the symbols of the caret and the inverted exclamation mark. Nonetheless, Greenwood (1729) opted for the latter in view of its use by German writers to mark irony.

~~152~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4.6.2.8. The parenthesis . According to most authors, the parenthesis encloses a sentence that is unnecessary in the text. Consequently, in both syntactic and semantic terms, such a sentence does not affect the entire construction (Barker, 1733: 31, Branch 1; Lowth, 1762: 172, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 267, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 121, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 188, Branch 5). For instance: Know then this truth, (enough for man to know) [v]irtue alone is happiness below. (Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 4).

. Parentheses are used to either explain the subject in depth or illustrate (Anon., 1788a: 34, Branch 1; Smetham, 1774: 32, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 267, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 121, Branch 4). As cases in point, consider the sentences used by Smetham (1774) and Newbery (1745): “[…] yesterday I went (with my sister) to the play” (Smetham, 1774: 32, Branch 2), “[…] I know that in me (that is, in my Flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” (Newbery, 1745: 121, Branch 4). . Unlike the inverted exclamation mark discussed above, given the dispensable nature of the parenthesis, its usefulness is questioned on the grounds that it is avoided by good writers (Hodgson, 1787: 160, Branch 3). Therefore, as Wright (1794) asserted, “[t]he parenthesis ought to be avoided, as much as possible, in writing.” (Wright, 1794: 69, Branch 2). . Lastly, as far as intonation is concerned, the parenthesis indicates a sort of intonation. Unlike both the exclamation and the interrogation marks, the parenthesis marks a moderate depression of the voice (Wright, 1794: 69, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 127, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 4).

4.6.2.9. Brackets . In accordance with the vast majority of authors, the brackets enclose “a word or sentence of the same signification with the preceding one, and which may be used in it’s [sic] stead;” (Burn, 1772: 219, Branch 3), (Hornsey, 1793: 58,

Branch 1; Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG), 1711: 129, Branch 2). . Brackets are used to explain either the preceding sentence in greater detail (Maittaire, 1712: 199, Branch 1; Miller, 1795: 22, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 267, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 121), as in “I went on Sunday [the Sabbath] to the

~~153~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

church” (Burn, 1772: 219, Branch 3), or something to be explained (Loughton, 1734: 151; Murray, 1795: 173, Branch 4), as in “[…] [See this word more fully defined in ―]” (Hodgson, 1787: 161, Branch 3). In the light of the explanatory nature of both brackets and parentheses, some authors like Newbery (1745) asserted that both punctuation marks are used interchangeably (Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4). Nonetheless, according to other authors like Burn (1772), both punctuation marks differ in the nature of the sentences they enclose. Thus, whereas the brackets enclose a sentence that is related to the subject treated, parentheses enclose a sentence of a different signification (Burn, 1772: 219, Branch 3).

4.6.2.10. Quotation marks . As discussed in the section devoted to the comma, the quotation marks used to be defined as two inverted commas or “double Comma inverted” (Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4), hence their inclusion in the functions of the comma (Coote, 1788: 264, Branch 3). . The consensus view of most authors is that quotation marks enclose a passage cited from another author (Hornsey 1793: 57, Branch 1; Bullen, 1797: 108, Branch 2; Coote, 1788: 264, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5). As a case in point, consider the following sentence: “[…] Some there are,” (says a certain author) “who having little wit of their own, endeavour to supply it with that of others.” (Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5).

4.6.2.11. The apostrophe As shown in the comma section, the apostrophe was included in the discussion of the comma given that both punctuation marks are represented by the same symbol. However, both punctuation marks differ not only in their placement but also in their functions. . That is, unlike the comma, the apostrophe is a comma that is placed over a word to mark the omission of one or more letters (Corbet, 1784: 39, Branch 1; Martin, 1754: 130, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 132, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 121, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5) as in, for instance, the words “’tis, for it is; tho’ for though; lov’d for loved.” (Newbery, 1745: 121, Branch

~~154~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4). Therefore, in view of the fact that the apostrophe denotes contraction, this punctuation mark is described as an “eliding symbol” (Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5). Notwithstanding, some authors, not least Bicknell (1790), advised writers against using the apostrophe for such a purpose in writing (Bicknell, 1790: 132, Branch 3) since the words should be full-length written (Devis, 1791: 124, Branch 3). What is more, according to some authors, the omission of letters should be allowed in poetry but avoided in prose on the grounds that in the former “[…] the Measure of the Verse requires two Syllables to be contracted into one […]” (Gough, 1760: 13, Branch 3), that is, the apostrophe “[…] reduces a line to its proper measure” (Coar, 1796: 223, Branch 3). . Besides shortening words, the apostrophe marks the genitive case of nouns, i.e. the possessive case (Johnston, 1772: 35, Branch 2; Bicknell, 1790: 132, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 4), as illustrated in the following words: “A man’s property; a woman’s ornament.” (Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 5). In fact, in the eyes of Bicknell (1790) and Murray (1795), among others, this second function of the apostrophe was considered to be “[i]ts chief use […]” (Bicknell, 1790: 132, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 5).

4.6.2.12. The dash The dash has two main functions. . The dash, primarily, denotes omission, i.e. the elision of either (part of) a word or sentence (Harrison, 1800: 68, Branch 3). As a way of illustration, consider the examples by Newbery (1745) and Gardiner (1799): “K―g for King” (Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4), “whom I ― but first I’ll calm the waves again.” (Gardiner, 1799: 101, Branch 2). As a matter of fact, many authors did not refer to such a punctuation mark as ‘dash’ but as ‘ellipsis’ (Corbet, 1784: 40, Branch 1; Shaw, 1778: 22, Branch 2; Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4). As discussed later on, several asterisks may also fulfill this eliding function, as Elphinston (1765: 194-195, Branch 5) asserted. . As for its second function, the dash denotes “[…] where a significant pause is required […]” (Murray, 1795: 168-169, Branch 4), that is, the dash marks a pause not sufficiently marked by the stops, i.e. the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period. Thus, the dash marks a shorter or longer pause according to the time that the pause should be held. As a case in point, the graphical

~~155~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

representation of the dash (―) was used by three authors such as Buchanan (1762), Crocker (1772) and Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) to refer to ‘the double period’, a term that they introduced to denote the pause of two periods (Buchanan, 1762: 54; Crocker, 1772: 62; Anon. or Hall (ECEG), 1789: 55) or, as Fogg (1792-1796: 94, Branch 2) clarified, it is equivalent to eight syllables. In view of the advantages ascribed to the dash, Fogg (1792-1796) advocated its use to such an extent that he questioned the usefulness of the aforementioned stops: One is even tempted to enquire why the dash has not supplanted the points themselves, when by its various lengths it is so capable of expressing what they cannot ― and if formed of a number of very short lines would so exactly and so easily mark the quantity of every pause. (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184-185, Branch 2).

Accordingly, in the eyes of Fogg (1792-1796: 184, Branch 2), the dash proves one of the most useful and convenient punctuation marks. By contrast, the usefulness of the dash is undermined by the careless and improper use that “hasty and incoherent writers” (Murray, 1795: 168, Branch 4) make of this punctuation mark.

4.6.2.13. The hyphen . Authors from the five branches agreed that the hyphen connects two words to make a compound (Corbet, 1784: 39, Branch 1; Bullen, 1797: 108, Branch 2; Wilson, 1769: 3, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 172, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5), hence the epithet “combining” (symbol) that Elphinston (1765: 195, Branch 5) ascribed to the hyphen. As illustrations, consider the following words: “[b]ird-cage” (Bullen, 1797: 108, Branch 2), “[l]ap-dog, tea- pot, pre-existence, self-love, to-morrow” (Murray, 1795: 172, Branch 4). . Another reason why the hyphen is regarded as a combining punctuation mark is that the hyphen joins the syllables of a word that are written partly at the end of a line and the remainder at the beginning of the next one (Francis, 1790: 8, Branch 2; Devis, 1791: 124, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 172, Branch 4). . Finally, authors discussed the use of the hyphen as the mark that denotes a long sound when placed over a vowel (Hornsey, 1793: 57, Branch 1; Fisher, 1753: 41, Branch 2; Buchanan, 1762: 55, Branch 3) as in, for example, “hāte” (Fisher, 1753: 41, Branch 2). In fact, many authors like Newbery (1745: 124,

~~156~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Branch 4) opted for a distinct name, that of ‘Long’, when referring to the aforesaid use. It is noteworthy that, according to some authors, this function of the hyphen is restricted to reading since this function varies in writing. That is to say, when applied to writing, the use of the hyphen over a letter denotes the omission of either the letter ‘m’ or ‘n’. In order to illustrate this function, Carter (1773) resorted to the following example: “[…] Nothiḡ is so coṁēdable as fair Writīg” (Carter, 1773: 36, Branch 2) which would be written entirely as “[n]othing is so commendable as fair Writing” (Carter, 1773: 36, Branch 2). Furthermore, when applied to writing, the name ‘dash’ would be used instead of that of ‘hyphen’ (Fisher, 1753: 41, Branch 2; Carter, 1773: 36, Branch 2).

4.6.2.14. The circumflex . The consensus view of most authors is that the circumflex is placed over a vowel to denote a long syllable or sound (Green, 1779: 38, Branch 1; Carter, 1773: 36, Branch 2; Anon. or Hall (ECEG), 1789: 57, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 4). For example, “Euphrâtes” (Murray, 1795: 171, Branch 4). The marking of a long sound has already been discussed as one of the functions of the hyphen. Accordingly, some authors like Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789: 56-57) and Buchanan (1762: 55, Branch 3) discussed both the hyphen and the circumflex and opted for one of the two. That is, Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789: 56-57) suggested that in order to indicate a long sound, the symbols of the hyphen and the circumflex are equally acceptable. Nonetheless, Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789: 56-57, Branch 3) and Buchanan (1762: 55, Branch 3) preferred the hyphen over the circumflex on the grounds that the latter is out of use.

4.6.2.15. The dieresis . Authors from the five branches agreed on the main and only function of the dieresis as the punctuation mark that splits a diphthong so that both vowels must be pronounced and divided into two syllables (Hornsey, 1793: 57, Branch 1; Stirling 1735: no p., Branch 2; Wilson 1769: 3, Branch 3; Murray 1795: 172, Branch 4), as in, for instance, “[c]apernaüm” (Fisher, 1753: 40,

~~157~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Branch 2). In other words, as Coar (1796: 225, Branch 3) suggested, the dieresis signifies dissolution or division.~~

4.6.2.16. The accent . As Ward (1777) avouched, the accent is “a Manner of Pronunciation” (Ward, 1777: 32, Branch 3), hence its function as the punctuation mark that indicates “the syllable in a word on which the stress of the voice is to be laid” (Martin, 1754: 130, Branch 2), (Green 1779: 38, Branch 1; Wilson 1769: 3, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 124, Branch 4). What is more, some authors like Raine (1771: 215, Branch 3), among others, argued that a double accent is used to denote that the following letter to which it is prefixed, has a double sound as in “báʹnish, hóʹmage” (Newbery, 1745: 124, Branch 4). Although the discussion on the accent was widespread, the discussion of the types of accent was found only, in broad terms, in Branches 2 and 3. That is, some authors, such as Ward (1777: 32, Branch 2) and Postlethwaite (1795: 45- 46, Branch 3), claimed that there is a distinction between the acute (´) and the grave (ˋ) accents since the former shows a rising of the voice whereas the latter shows a depression.

4.6.2.17. The breve . The function of the breve was summarized by Newbery (1745) as the punctuation mark that indicates the quantity of the syllable over which it is placed (Newbery, 1745: 124, Branch 4). Unlike both the hyphen and the circumflex, the breve is placed over a syllable to denote short or quick pronunciation (Hornsey, 1793: 57, Branch 1; Smetham, 1774: 31, Branch 2; Wilson 1769: 3, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 172, Branch 4) as in “hăt” (Smetham, 1774: 31, Branch 2). In fact, as discussed in the section 4.6.2.13, i.e. the section devoted to the hyphen, many authors like Newbery (1745: 124, Branch 4) preferred a distinct name, that of ‘Short’, when referring to the

~~aforesaid use.~~

~~4.6.2.18. The caret . Both the caret and the circumflex alike were represented by means of the same graphical symbol, that of (^). Although the circumflex is “exactly like the~~

~~158~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

caret”, as Smetham (1774: 31, Branch 2) asserted, the latter differs from the former in its nature and function. That is, unlike the circumflex, the caret is grammatical in nature since it denotes interlineations or, in other words, indicates that a letter, syllable or word was mistakenly omitted in the first writing. Accordingly, the caret is placed underneath the line where the missing part should be brought in (Barker, 1733: 31, Branch 1; Steele, 1782: 152, Branch 2; Anon. or Hall (ECEG), 1789: 56, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 123, Branch 4). That is the reason why some authors, not least Smetham (1774: 31, Branch 2), highlighted the helpfulness of the caret in the restoration of the sense of the text. As a way of illustration, consider his very example: found “Billy˰a bird’s nest” (Smetham, 1774: 31, Branch 2).

It must be noted that some authors like Newbery (1745: 123, Branch 4) and Anon. or Newbery (ECEG) (1776: 45, Branch 4) claimed that the caret is not used in printing. However, Steele (1782: 152, Branch 2) claimed the opposite.

4.6.2.19. The brace(s) . In writing, the brace joins several words together that are related to one common term (Corbet, 1784: 41, Branch 1; Ash, 1796: xxiii, Branch 2; Greenwood, 1737: 157, Branch 3; Anon. or Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 45, Branch 4). According to the arguments provided by some authors, the use of the brace(s) prevents repetition, as in the following example: a long The vowel a has a short sound. a broad

~~(Anon. or Newbery (ECEG). Ibid).~~

As shown in the foregoing example, the words enclosed within braces are features of the same vowel, i.e. the vowel ‘a’. Thanks to the use of braces, neither the word “vowel” nor the word “sound” was unnecessarily repeated. . In poetry, braces are used at the end of a triplet, i.e. three lines that have the same rhyme (Corbet 1784: 41, Branch 1; Gardiner, 1799: 102, Branch 2; Bicknell 1790: 133, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 173, Branch 4). As a way of illustration, consider Fisher (1753):

~~159~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~While thee, O Virtue, bright celestial Guest, Whoe’er pursues, secures eternal Rest, And cannot be unhappy, tho’ opprest. (Fisher, 1753: 42, Branch 2).~~

4.6.2.20. The paragraph . The paragraph marks the beginning of a new subject. The use of the paragraph as a marker of new subjects, as was generally agreed on, is mostly used in The Bible (Corbet, 1784: 40, Branch 1; Fogg, 1792-1796: 184, Branch 2; Hodson, 1800: 50, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4). Examples of the paragraph mark were scarce since most authors, like Murray (1795: 172, Branch 4), referred the reader to the Old and New Testaments on the grounds that this punctuation mark is “used principally, if not solely, in the Bible” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184, Branch 2). . Linked with the former rule, the paragraph comprises several sentences under such a new subject or head (Green, 1779: 38, Branch 1; Hodgson, 1770: 165, Branch 2; Wilson 1769: 3, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 172, Branch 4). Interestingly, this assertion led to a new coinage, that of ‘break or paragraph’, which was solely discussed by three authors such as Buchanan (1762), Crocker (1772) and Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789). In fact, with regard to the first function of the paragraph discussed at the beginning, Fogg (1792-1796: 184, Branch 2) acknowledged that in The Bible “[…] its use seems to be about the same with the other paragraph or break.” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184, Branch 2). Therefore, we are dealing with two different types of the paragraph mark. . As Crocker (1772: 62, Branch 3) stated, the ‘break or paragraph’ is, basically, a sentence begun in another line (Crocker, 1772: 62) and it denotes the pause of two double periods (Anon. or Hall (ECEG), 1789: 55-56, Branch 3; Buchanan, 1762: 54, Branch 3; Crocker, 1772: 62, Branch 3) or, as Fogg (1792-1796: 94, Branch 2) clarified, it is equivalent to sixteen syllables. What is more, Buchanan (1762), Crocker (1772) and Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) discussed the existence of the ‘double break or double paragraph’ which denotes, as its very name suggests, that the voice must rest during the time of two paragraphs (Buchanan, 1762: 54; Crocker, 1772: 62; Anon. or Hall (ECEG) 1789: 56) or, as Fogg (1792-1796: 94, Branch 2) clarified, it is equivalent to thirty-two syllables. Therefore, as already shown in the section

~~160~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4.6.2.12. “The dash”, these three authors discussed the existence of the double period, the break or paragraph and the double break or double paragraph in rhetorical terms, in view of the duration of the pauses ascribed to each punctuation mark. Nonetheless, unlike the double period, neither the break nor the double break was represented. That is one of the reasons why the variant ‘types’ of the paragraph mark might be considered to be ‘rare’. In fact, when describing these variant types, Fogg (1792-1796) acknowledged that “[p]art of this rule, indeed the doctrine of punctuation in general, is too hard for young learners” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 94, Branch 2). . Finally, albeit scarcely, the paragraph was discussed additionally as a note of reference, as in Lowe (1737):

~~[…] REFERENCES to Notes &c. are made by Superior numbers (²) Superior letters (ª) Asterisms (*) Obelisks († […]) Sections (§) Paragraphs (¶) ― […] (Lowe, 1737: 3, Branch 3).~~

4.6.2.21. The section . The section is the punctuation mark that subdivides a book or chapter into lesser parts (Hornsey, 1793: 57, Branch 1; Carter, 1773: 37, Branch 2; Wilson, 1769: 3, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 172, Branch 4). As for the sort of books wherein the section is included, Newbery (1745: 122, Branch 4) and Anon. or Newbery (ECEG) (1776: 45, Branch 4), among others, compared the paragraph to the section mark on the grounds that the former is used in The Bible whereas the latter, in common books. . In line with the paragraph discussion, the section was also further analyzed as a group of paragraphs that begins in a new line (Elphinston, 1765: 189, Branch 5) or, according to Smetham (1774: 33, Branch 2), the section is equated to an inferior kind of chapter. To clarify the foregoing assertion, Elphinston (1765) stated that: For, as of members sentences, of paragraphs is a section, of sections a chapter (which is but a greater section) and of chapters a treatise composed (Elphinston, 1765: 189, Branch 5).

. Likewise, with regard to the ‘rare’ punctuation marks discussed in the paragraph section, i.e. the double period, the break or paragraph and the double break or double paragraph, Fogg (1792-1796: 184, Branch 2) drew a

~~161~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

parallel between the double break or double paragraph and the section mark given that the latter is composed of more than two paragraphs. . Finally, in very few instances, the section was discussed additionally as a note of reference as in, for instance, Story (1783): Section (§), or division, used in dividing books or chapters into smaller parts; and sometimes referring to the margin or bottom of the page. (Story, 1783: 69, Branch 3).

4.6.2.22. The index or ‘pointing finger’ . The index is, by general consensus, the punctuation mark that points at some very remarkable passage which, as Corbet (1784) stated, “ought to be taken Notice of” (Corbet, 1784: 40, Branch 1), (Hornsey, 1793: 57, Branch 1; Francis, 1790: 8, Branch 2; Wilson, 1769: 3, Branch 3; Anon. or Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 45, Branch 4). . Besides, in very few instances, the index, as well as the paragraph and the section, was discussed additionally as a note of reference as in, for instance, Johnston (1772): The marks of reference to the margin, or bottom of the page, are, the asterisk, this (*), which also serves to fill up blanks; the obelisk, this (†); the double obelisk (‡); the parallel, this (ǁ); the index, this (☞); numeral figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. and alphabetical letters, a, b, c, d, &c. (Johnston, 1772: 35, Branch 2).

4.6.2.23. Notes of reference: asterisk, obelisk and parallels . To prevent repetition, I have gathered some punctuation marks that share the same function, that of notes of reference, which are, by general consensus, represented by the asterisk, the obelisk, parallels, letters of the alphabet and figures (Hornsey, 1793: 56, Branch 1; Fisher, 1753: 41, Branch 2; Wilson, 1769: 3, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 173, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 189, Branch 5). In fact, the aforesaid punctuation marks used to be named together in the vast majority of cases, as shown in the example quoted from Johnston (1772) in the previous section 4.6.2.22. Interestingly, the use of letters and figures enclosed within parentheses as notes of reference was supported by seventeenth-century authors like the author of the anonymous treatise on punctuation published in 1680.

~~162~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4.6.2.24. Several asterisks . As discussed in the previous section, the asterisk was used as a note of reference. Besides, according to authors from the five branches, several asterisks can be gathered in order to denote extra meanings. In general, several asterisks denote either omission or defect in a passage of the text (Hornsey, 1793: 57, Branch 1; Stirling, 1735: no p., Branch 2; Wise, 1754: 27, Branch 3; Murray, 1795: 173, Branch 4; Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5), thereby the text is regarded as unfinished or mutilated (Fogg, 1792-1796: 185, Branch 2. According to Fogg (ibid), as a general rule, if some letters are omitted (Elphinston, 1765: 195, Branch 5), the writer must include as many asterisks as letters have been suppressed in the word. . Finally, several asterisks are also used to indicate that the words quoted from another author denote ‘immodesty’ so much so that the words have been suppressed and replaced by the asterisks (Fisher, 1753: 40, Branch 2; Wise, 1754: 27, Branch 3; Newbery, 1745: 122, Branch 4).

~~4.7. Generic terms~~

4.7.1. Introduction According to Rodríguez-Gil (2002: 91): “Among [the] group of reforming grammarians there was only a woman who risked to change the traditional conception of English grammars proposed in the Latinate grammars, this woman was Ann Fisher”. In this section I aim at attesting how far Rodríguez-Gil’s assertion is applicable to the generic terminology displayed in grammars so that, following the trend of Michael’s survey (1970), I will attempt to gauge the level of adherence to classical models or, by the contrary, to the reforming movement towards an English model. In order to undertake this survey, I will analyze the etymology of the terminology displayed in the authors’ punctuation sections. Likewise, Michael’s systems of parts of speech are compared to the systems of punctuation of the present corpus to check to what extent authors were consistent in their stance towards either a Latinate or an English grammar. In this way, it might be argued that the authorial generic terms and the system of punctuation chosen are conscious indicatives of the author’s defence of what Michael (1970) labelled as either Latin or vernacular models (s.v. section 2.4).

~~163~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

4.7.2. Function(s) of the generic terminology displayed in grammar books In relation to generic terminology, the four terms that were used to designate punctuation marks in general were stops, pauses, points and marks. These four were the only generic terms that appeared in grammars until the 1740s, when Newbery added the term notes in 1745 (1745: 118) and Martin, the term characters in 1754 (1754: 128). The term distinction was solely deployed by Buchanan (1762), Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) and Stapleton (1797) as, for example, part of the phrase “notes or distinctions of pause” (Buchanan, 1762: 54; Anon. or Hall, 1789: 55). As can be seen in Appendix A., all of these terms, i.e., stops, pauses, points, marks, notes and characters, were deployed in the systems of punctuation until the end of the century. Of the set of generic terms, the most recurrent ones were points/stops and marks and the choice of either one or the other depended on both the inventory and function of punctuation marks. After having analyzed the occurrences of the terms in the punctuation systems devised by authors, I argue that points was used in 45 systems to refer to the first group of punctuation marks which comprises, on the whole, the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks and, in some cases, the parenthesis. The term stops was present in 46 systems and marks in only 11 of them to refer to this first group of punctuation marks, i.e. the ‘primary’ ones. In total, the term points was displayed in 63.38% of the 71 systems of punctuation; the term stops, in 64.78% and the term marks, in 15.49%. Curiously, the latter was encountered within Branch 1 in punctuation systems that presented six punctuation marks or even more in a single set, not least Corbet (1784), so that it could be argued that the author preferred the term marks in view of the 20 punctuation marks gathered. As for the wide array of punctuation marks such as the brackets, the hyphen, the apostrophe, the braces, the quotation marks, the caret, the circumflex, the dieresis, the breve, the paragraph, the section, the accent, the asterisk, the obelisk, the index, the dash and the parallels, authors agreed on labelling them as marks and, to a lesser extent, characters and notes. In total, of the 63 punctuation systems that had two or more groups of punctuation marks, i.e. the punctuation systems gathered in Branches 2, 3, 4 and 5, 49 systems (77.7%) displayed the term marks and 18 (28.57%) displayed the terms characters or notes. Interestingly, the term points was used in 22 systems within Branch 2 whereas it was solely used in the system “e) Type 1”

~~164~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

within Branch 3, i.e. in the system devised by Greenwood (1711), to refer to the aforementioned wide array of punctuation marks. Therefore, it might be argued that the further refinement of the wide array of punctuation marks, the lesser usage of the term points, hence its 36.5% of usage in total. Moreover, in view of the comprehensive inventory of punctuation marks that some systems of punctuation displayed, some authors provided no generic term. That is, if the ‘primary’ group of punctuation marks was comprehensive and heterogeneous, some authors opted for providing no labelling at all, like Green (1779) whose punctuation system comprised 21 punctuation marks in a single group, and if the generic term had to be applied to the ‘secondary’ group of punctuation marks, the reluctance of authors to provide it with a generic term was more conspicuous, like in Coar (1796). In total, of the 71 systems of punctuation, no generic term for the ‘primary’ punctuation marks was encountered in three systems (4.22%) whereas, of the 63 systems that had two or more groups of punctuation marks, no generic term for the ‘secondary’ punctuation marks was encountered in 11 systems (17.46%). As a way of illustration, Chart 267 shows the changing trends of the generic terms discussed so far. It must be noted that the left-sided figures within the bar chart represent the 71 punctuation systems in spite of the fact that the numbers have been rounded off to 70. Besides, the figure above each bar stands for the total number of punctuation systems in which the generic term was encountered.

~~67 The results are discussed further in the subsection 4.7.3. as indicators of the authors’ adherence to either Latinate or vernacular approaches to punctuation. 165~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Chart 2. Overall trends of the generic terms points, stops, marks, characters and notes as well as the lack of generic terms encountered in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

With regard to the function of punctuation marks, authors agreed on the function of the so-called points despite the differing gatherings of such punctuation marks. As Salmon (1988) stated, “[g]rammarians were […] aware of the function of stops as pauses […]” (Salmon, 1988: 295). Thus, points were mainly explained rhetorically. Within the first three branches, authors referred to the so-called points as breathing pauses, (s.v. section 4.3. “Approaches to Punctuation”) hence the rhetorical arguments that had to do with the analogy between music and punctuation marks. Besides, other authors dealt with intonation patterns ascribed to the points. Syntactical explanations of the points were encountered as well since authors like Martin (1754: 129) and Metcalfe (1771: 23) argued that points distinguish the members of a complete period. In fact, as Salmon (1988) asserted, the names colon or comma were “[…] the original name[s] for a ‘section’ of a sentence” (Salmon, 1988: 287). All in all, the combination of syntactical, semantic and rhetorical criteria was also widespread among grammars. As cases in point, Greenwood (1711: 225), among others, stated that points mark the pauses in reading and sense in writing or, as Harrison (1794) wittily stated, points have a double purpose in writing on the grounds that they have respect both to

~~166~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

grammar and to elocution (Harrison, 1794: 98). By contrast, the so-called group of marks or characters was explained overwhelmingly in orthographical terms. According to the vast majority of authors who included the aforementioned wide array of punctuation marks, marks must be used in writing on the grounds that such punctuation marks are frequently used in composition (Murray, 1795: 171). For example, Martin (1754) and Wright (1794) asserted that marks must be used in orthography or in books, respectively (Martin, 1754: 130; Wright, 1794: 69). Likewise, Anon. (1746: 92) and Johnston (1772: 35) related marks to printing. Curiously, within Branch 3, authors who explicitly mentioned the word ‘writing’ in their section headings advocated a wide group of marks to the extent that twelve punctuation marks were averaged out. Nonetheless, although the generic term marks was mainly associated with ‘writing’, Stirling (1735: no p.), Newbery (1745: 120), Anon. or Newbery (ECEG) (1776: 44) and Chown (1788: 16) associated such a generic term with ‘reading’ maybe because some marks signalled some particularities that had to be taken into account when reading the passage aloud, for example the ‘breve ( )’ which was defined as a mark that denotes the vowel must be sounded quick (Chown, 1788: 16). What is more, in a few grammar editions, e.g. Wise (1754: 26), Woolgar (1766: 18) and Corbet (1784: 37), the so-called marks were associated to both reading and writing. However, I have also encountered systems of punctuation in which no criterion on the use of marks was presented, for example in the systems of punctuation by Maittaire (1712), Green (1779) and Hornsey (1793), among others. Interestingly, so as to understand the exclusion of criteria on the use of marks, I resort to Hodgson (1770) in particular since, according to this author, his second group of punctuation marks comprises “others” that are not so common, hence the lack of criterion on their use (Hodgson, 1770: 165). Besides, in the light of the adjectives such as “chief” (Greenwood, 1737: 153; Burn, 1766: 181, Anon., 1770-1771: 111; Meikleham, 1781: 23) and “principal” (Fenning, 1771: 155; Ireland, 1784: 276) that authors ascribed to points, I infer that the discussion on punctuation marks was hierarchical per se. All in all, having analyzed the 71 systems of punctuation, I state that authors presented several criteria to explain the generic function of punctuation marks, namely, authors combined rhetorical, syntactical and semantic criteria. Nonetheless, such a combination of criteria is mainly found in some punctuation

~~167~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

marks such as the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation mark, the exclamation mark and the parenthesis in comparison to the rest of punctuation marks whose usages are guided by one single criterion, i.e. the orthographical. That is to say, punctuation marks that are deployed as helps in writing and reading serve different purposes, hence the combination of criteria. As a way of illustration, consider the colon. As far as breathing is concerned, the colon is a pause of longer duration than the semicolon. From a grammatical standpoint, colon is used when the sentence is complete but, semantically speaking, the sentence is incomplete (Lowth, 1762: 170). By contrast, punctuation marks such as the asterisk, the hyphen, the pointing finger, the paragraph and the section, among others, have a single function in writing like, for instance, the pointing finger which points at something that is very remarkable in the written text (Fisher, 1753: 41). As a result, I infer that authors did not treat punctuation marks as a monolithic group since, as Rodríguez-Álvarez (2010) asserted in her survey of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century handbooks, “[…] authors were aware of the different nature and function of a full stop, for example, and a caret or a pointing hand in a text” (2010: 41). Therefore, the awareness of the differences among punctuation marks explains why authors distinguished between two diverging groups of punctuation marks and thereby, between two generic terms, i.e. points and marks.

4.7.3. The etymology of the generic terminology as (un)conscious indicator of the author’s stance towards the English language With regard to the etymology of stops, pauses, points, marks, notes and characters, only mark and stop have Germanic roots whereas the remaining four alongside the term distinction have Latin/Greek roots. According to the OED, the mark is: “A merging of at least three distinct but related Germanic base forms, whose reflexes remained distinct in Old English, but had fallen together by late Middle English” whereas stop, which comes from Old English stoppian, “[…] corresponding to Old Low Frankish (be)stuppôn to stop (the ears), (Middle) Dutch, (Middle) Low German stoppen (whence Icelandic, Swedish stoppa, Danish stoppe), West Frisian stopje, Middle High German, modern German stopfen, to plug, stop up […]” might also be a Germanic adoption of the Latin stuppāre but, according to the aforementioned dictionary, “[t]he Anglo-Norman

~~168~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

estopper (latinized estoppare), whence estop v., is to be regarded as adopted from the English verb rather than as a variant of Old French estouper”. On the contrary, pause, point, note, character and distinction have come down to us from the Latin/Greek forms pausa, punctus, nota, charactēr and distinctiōn-em, respectively (OED). To a large extent, eighteenth-century authors followed the trend that earlier authors established and, what is more, they tried to specify the inventory and functions of the so-called marks. According to Rodríguez-Álvarez (2010: 38), most sixteenth- and seventeenth-century schoolmasters referred to the comma, the colon, the period, the interrogation and the exclamation marks as points or stops since they were punctuation marks of primary importance and which had to be distinguished from a group of punctuation marks that was presented separately and whose labelling was diverse in view of the terms secondary points, other distinctions, figures, figurative points and accidental (Salmon, 1988: 299; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 41). Unlike sixteenth- and seventeenth-century schoolmasters, eighteenth-century authors opted for the prevalence of the term marks over secondary points, other distinctions, figures and accidental, all of which have Latin roots, maybe as an attempt to specialize such a set of punctuation marks. Moreover, to a small extent, some eighteenth-century authors, e.g. Ward (1777: 32), categorized several marks into types of accent and notes of reference, for instance, whereas sixteenth- and seventeenth-century schoolmasters presented the marks without any sort of arrangement (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 41). From these findings it might be argued that during the EModE period authors advocated classical terminology when referring to both ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ punctuation marks, hence the widespread use of terms like points, distinctions, figures, notes and characters, among others, whereas during the LModE period authors advocated a vernacular or, say, a Germanic-rooted terminology given the outstanding use of the term marks when referring to the ‘secondary’ punctuation marks. However, a more balanced or a ‘fifty-fifty’ terminology was advocated when addressing the ‘primary’ punctuation marks since the Latinate term points and the Germanic term stops were almost interchangeable in view of the figures shown in Charter 1 above. As a way of illustration, see Diagram 1:

~~169~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Diagram 1. Taxonomy of generic terms in accordance with their etymology~~

Since the usage of the terms points and stops, which are etymologically different, might respond to an overt bias, I have sorted the 75 authors who comprise this corpus into three distinct groups: those who used solely classical generic terms; those who, by the contrary, used solely Germanic terms; those whose generic terms were a mixture of both. By and large, the authors who took a more eclectic stance, that is, those who mixed Romanic and Germanic terms comprised the vast majority of cases. The mixture of etymologically-different terms showed two patterns: on the one hand, authors deployed such a mixture when punctuation marks displayed no sort of arrangement like the punctuation systems gathered in Branch 1. For instance, within Branch 1, Corbet (1784: 30) used the terms “Stops, Marks and Points” when referring to his twenty punctuation marks and he did not specify which ones were labelled as stops, as marks nor as points. On the contrary, in the light of his very title, it seems as if he treated his twenty punctuation marks almost alike:

~~Figure 3. Punctuation section in Corbet (1784: 30)~~

~~170~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

On the other hand, authors mixed terms when the punctuation marks were grouped into two or more sets so that authors could have felt uncertain about the punctuation marks’ labelling as, for instance, Bicknell (1790: 130-133) who considered the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period as points or stops; the interrogation and exclamation marks, as other points and, finally, sixteen other punctuation marks as notes or marks “to be met with in reading”. Whatever the reason, it is obvious that authors did not prefer one of the etymologies over the other. Secondarily, twelve authors professed an overt predilection for Germanic terms so that they used solely the terms stops or marks when referring to the primary punctuation marks and marks when referring to the secondary ones. The twelve authors were: Stirling (1735), Fisher (1753), Metcalfe (1771; 1777), Carter (1773), McGowan (1773), Bettesworth (1778), Wilson (1792), Webster (1785), Anon. (1788a), Pape (1790), Fogg (1792-1796) and Bullen (1797). Among them, Metcalfe (1771) stood out given that he only used the term marks when referring to each of his three different groups of punctuation marks, that is, he considered the four ‘primary’ points to be marks which distinguish the members of a sentence; the parenthesis, the exclamation and the interrogation marks to be other marks and sixteen others to be usual marks in writing. Finally, as for the authors who used solely classical terms like points, pauses, characters and distinctions, only four authors were encountered in total and they were: Lowth (1762), Jones (1771), Burr (1797) and Stapleton (1797). As a way of illustration, consider Stapleton (1797) who labelled the four ‘primary’ points as points or distinctions which divide a discourse into periods and express pauses to be made in reading and, besides, he labelled the interrogation and the exclamation marks as points “sufficiently explained by their names” (Stapleton, 1797: 3). All in all, in view of these findings, it might be argued that the rate of authors who professed an overt adherence to a single tradition, either Latinate or vernacular, was low since, on the whole, out of the 75 authors the twelve ones who advocated Germanic-rooted terms represented 16% whereas the four authors who advocated Latin terms represented 5.33% so, overall, these sixteen authors represented 21.33% of the total. Thus, the remaining authors who mixed terms represented the 78.6% of the total. In the form of summary, Table 13 shows the authors who advocated either Latinate terms or Germanic ones:

~~171~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~GENERIC TERMINOLOGY~~

~~GERMANIC LATIN Etymology (ROMANIC) Etymology~~

~~Stirling (1735) Lowth (1762)~~

~~Fisher (1753) Jones (1771)~~

~~Metcalfe (1771; Burr (1797) 1777) Stapleton (1797) Carter (1773)~~

~~McGowan (1773) AUTHORS Bettesworth (1778)~~

~~Wilson (1782)~~

~~Webster (1785)~~

~~Anon. (1788a)~~

~~Pape (1790)~~

~~Fogg (1792-1796)~~

~~Bullen (1797)~~

~~TOTAL No. of 12 4 16 Authors~~

~~PERCENTAGES 16% 5.33% 21.33%~~

~~Table 13. Summary of the authors who advocated either Germanic-rooted or Latin-rooted generic terms~~

As discussed in section 4.5., the most repeated systems in the corpus were Lowth (1762) and Fisher (1753) and, with regard to the etymology of the terms chosen by both authors, it could be argued that they took differing stances. Interestingly, Fisher (1753) showed a clear-cut preference for Germanic-rooted terms given that she labelled her two groups of punctuation marks as stops and marks. Therefore, Fisher’s preference might respond to her conscious attempt to spread the reforming movement already discussed by Michael (1970) (s.v. section 2.4). Nonetheless, in view of my findings, Fisher (1753) was not the first author who advocated a Germanic or, say, a more vernacular terminology since Stirling (1735) was the first. On the contrary, Lowth (1762) showed his adherence to the classical terminology given that he labelled his two groups of punctuation marks

~~172~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

as points. Likewise, according to Michael (1970: 225), Lowth (1762) advocated the Latin grammatical system of parts of speech. Besides, unlike Fisher (1753), he was the first author who advocated a purely classical terminology although Jones (1771), who was Lowth’s most immediate follower, adapted the generic terms almost ten years after (see Table 13 above). In any case, either in pursuit of simplicity or a reforming movement, Fisher (1753) was consistent in her defence of a vernacular system in both the parts of speech, as discussed by Michael (1970), and in the generic terminology applied to punctuation given her use of Germanic terms, thereby strengthening her rejection of the English grammars which seemed to be translations of the Latin ones (s.v. section 2.4.). Likewise, Lowth (1762) was consistent in his defence of a classical system of parts of speech and of classical terminology in punctuation so, by and large, he was conservative and he reflected it in his punctuation section as well as in his justification of a simple punctuation system (s.v. section 4.5.1). All in all, despite their differing stances, Fisher (1753) and Lowth (1762) agreed on the number of sets of punctuation marks since both authors advocated a punctuation system that comprised two groups of punctuation marks. In order to find more evidences, I will compare Michael’s systems with the systems of punctuation in the next subsection.

4.7.4. Michael’s (1970) survey of the parts of speech correlated with systems of punctuation: Latin vs. vernacular models As already discussed in section 2.4., Michael (1970) sorted his 259 grammars into four different grammatical systems, i.e. Latin systems, modified systems before 1700, vernacular systems and modified systems after 1700, according to the model of parts of speech they displayed, though, in general, they could be reduced into two broad sets: the set of Latin systems of parts of speech and the set of reduced systems. Of Michael’s 259 grammars, 52 grammars written by 4968 authors are surveyed in the corpus of the thesis: Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711), Greenwood (1711, 1737), Maittaire (1712), Barker (1733),

68 Although Michael’s corpus (1970) and the one of the present thesis differ in the grammar editions analyzed of Fisher (1750) and Ash (1760) since I analyzed Fisher’s 1753 edition and Ash’s 1761, I have included both authors anyway given that Fisher’s and Ash’s editions have shown scarce or no variation in their later editions. Therefore, I start from the premise that their first editions might follow the same pattern. 173

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Loughton (1734), Stirling (1735), Lowe (1737), Turner (1739), Corbet (1743), Anon. (1746), Fisher (1753), Martin (1754), Wise (1754), Ash (1761), Buchanan (1762, 1767), Lowth (1762), Elphinston (1765), Burn (1766), Ward (1767), Hodgson (1770), Fenning (1771), Jones (1771), Metcalfe (1771, 1777), Raine (1771), Crocker (1772), Carter (1773), Smetham (1774), Ward (1777), Bettesworth (1778), Shaw (1778), Corbet (1784), Ireland (1784), Anon. (1788b), Coote (1788), Bicknell (1790), Francis (1790), Pape (1790), Fogg (1792-1796), Wilson (1792), Hornsey (1793), Harrison (1794), Wright (1794), Murray (1795), Postlethwaite (1795), Rhodes (1795), Coar (1796), Bullen (1797), Stapleton (1797) and Gardiner (1799). In broad terms, the 52 grammars correspond only to two Michael’s systems of parts of speech, namely, Latin and vernacular systems. The vast majority belongs to his category of Latin systems: 44 grammars vs. 12 grammars but, out of the 12 grammars sorted into vernacular systems, four –Metcalfe (1771), Smetham (1774), Ward (1777), Bullen (1797) and Turner (1739)– were also sorted into the Latin ones since these authors devised an alternative system of parts of speech. Within the Latin systems, the 44 grammars were gathered in 11 systems which were numbered by Michael (1970) as systems 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 19 and, on the contrary, within the vernacular systems, the 12 grammars were gathered in six systems numbered as systems 33, 35, 36, 38, 45 and 55. If we correlate Michael’s systems of parts of speech to the systems of punctuation of the present study, Michael’s Latin systems encompass, in my survey, the authors whose punctuation systems have been sorted into the five Branches whereas Michael’s vernacular systems encompass, in my survey, authors whose punctuation systems have been sorted into Branches 2 and 3. As a way of illustration, Table 14 shows the categorization of the 52 grammars in accordance with Michael’s systems and the systems of punctuation so that the correlation between both is displayed:

~~174~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Systems of Michael’s (1970) Punctuation Systems of Parts of Speech Grammars Branch No. System Systems of No. Parts of Speech~~

~~Stirling (1735), Corbet (1743), Smetham (1774) & 2 & 3 1 Metcalfe (1771)~~

~~Corbet (1784), Ward (1767), Bettesworth (1778) & 1; 2 & 3 4 Fenning (1771)~~

~~Barker (1733), Stapleton (1797) & Greenwood (Essays, 1711; Royal, 1737), Buchanan (British 1; 2 & 3 7 Grammar, 1762; Regular Syntax, 1767) Maittaire (1712) 2 8~~

~~Ash (1761)*, Hodgson (1770), Ward (1777), Ireland (1784), Anon. (1788b), Francis (1790), Latin 2 & 3 9 Pape (1790), Wilson (1792), Rhodes (1795), Bullen Systems (1797), Gardiner (1799) & Coar (1796)~~

Hornsey (1793), Lowth (1762), Burn (1766), Shaw (1778), Fogg (1792-1796), Wright (1794), Raine (1771), Crocker (1772), Coote (1788), Bicknell 1; 2; 3 & 4 10 (1790), Postlethwaite (1795) & Murray (1795)

~~Turner (1739) 2 12~~

~~Elphinston (1765) 5 15~~

~~Jones (1771) 1 17~~

~~Metcalfe (1777) 3 18~~

~~Harrison (1794) 3 19~~

~~Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711), 2 33 Loughton (1734), Anon. (1746) Wise (1754) 3 35~~

~~Fisher (1750)*, Carter (1773), Smetham (1774), Ward (1777) & Lowe (1737) 2 & 3 36 Vernacular Turner (1739) 2 38 Systems~~

~~Martin (1754) 2 45~~

~~Bullen (1797) 2 55~~

~~Table 14. Taxonomy of the 52 grammars in accordance with Michael’s systems of parts of speech as well as the systems of punctuation surveyed in the present study~~

~~175~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

In the light of these results, some parallelisms can be drawn, to a certain extent, between Michael’s (1970) findings and mine. In section 4.5. I have argued that, albeit significant, the variety displayed in the systems of punctuation is trivial given that the differences among systems lie in the arrangement of specific punctuation marks. For instance, with regard to the classification of the interrogation and the exclamation marks, some authors like Wilson (1769) sorted both into a single group of punctuation marks which were separated from two other groups, that of the four ‘primary’ punctuation marks –the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period– and that of twelve marks like the hyphen, the apostrophe and the parenthesis, among others. Contrastingly, J.G. (1799) sorted the interrogation and the exclamation marks together with eleven other punctuation marks into a single group whereas the ‘primary’ four punctuation marks were grouped separately. Similarly, according to Michael (1970: 276), albeit conspicuous, the variations among the systems of parts of speech were equally trivial given that the differences among the systems lie in three or four parts of speech in particular: Within the 20 Latin systems, if No. 1 is taken as the norm, the 19 others vary from it fifteen times in respect of the article, eleven times in respect of the adjective, nine times in respect of the participle, six times in respect of the interjection and five times in respect of the pronoun (Michael, 1970: 296).

In this sense, Michael (1970: 274) argued that the variable and comprehensive grouping of the parts of speech “could be justified only if the classes were mutually exclusive”, that is: If some words could be considered as belonging to two or more classes there was always the possibility that the characteristics which permitted this alternative classification were the criteria by which a new class should be determined (ibid).

Therefore, if Michael’s argument was extrapolated to the systems of punctuation, the sets of punctuation marks would be mutually exclusive since the characteristics of some punctuation marks like, for instance, the interrogation and the exclamation marks, were the criteria by which some authors sorted these two into either points or marks. Moreover, Michael’s argument might explain why some authors devised three, four and even five sets of punctuation marks to arrange the so-called marks and, what is more, Michael’s argument might justify why the eccentricities encountered in some of Michael’s ‘systems modified after

~~176~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

1700’ have been equally found in the systems of punctuation surveyed in the present corpus (cf. Crocker, 1772, 1775 in Branch 3; Elphinston, 1765 in Branch 5). According to Michael (1970), this wide variation in the arrangement of parts of speech was due to the authors’ disagreement with the systems proposed so far. Therefore, the inconsistency in the arrangement of punctuation marks encountered throughout the 71 systems of punctuation might reflect the “grammarians’ discomfort, which expressed itself in the only way it could: by shifting the elements in the scheme uneasily round and round” (Michael, 1970: 275) so, underneath the authors’ discontent with the systems of punctuation proposed, a reforming movement might have been taking place. In fact, as Michael (1970) asserted, the use of new terminology and of different numbers of parts of speech were signals of such a reforming movement in the grammatical systems of the parts of speech (s.v. section 2.4). Likewise, in relation to punctuation systems, in view of the specialization of the wide array of the ‘secondary’ punctuation marks and the terminology deployed, a reforming movement was actually happening (s.v. section 4.7.2. and 4.7.3. above). In this sense, the authors’ disagreement with the punctuation systems was more conspicuous than with the systems of parts of speech given the number of systems of punctuation encountered. That is, unlike Michael (1970: 275) who argued that “of the 56 systems described above 28 are advocated, or accepted, by only one author”, out of the 71 punctuation systems that comprise the corpus of this thesis, 62 are advocated or accepted by only one author. Therefore, while 50% of the systems of parts of speech were accepted almost collectively, 87.3% of the punctuation systems was fostered by a single author maybe as result of a higher rate of disagreement among the authors. The general nonconformist spirit was reflected even in the number of alternative punctuation systems which some authors devised and which were put forward either in later editions or in different grammar books written by the same author since, out of the 75 authors who comprise the entire corpus, 13 devised more than one punctuation system and they were: Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711, 1712), Greenwood (1711, 1737), Loughton (1734, 1749), Turner (1739, 1741), Ash (1761, 1796), Burn (1766, 1772), Hodgson (1770, 1787), Metcalfe (1771, 1777), Crocker (1772, 1775), Meikleham (1781, 1795), Webster (1784, 1785), Harrison (1794, 1800) and Murray (1795, 1797b, 1798a). Among them,

~~177~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Murray (1795) stood out since he was the only author who put three punctuation systems forward throughout the editions of his English Grammar and of his Abridgment. Interestingly, among the foregoing authors whose grammars were also analyzed in Michael (1970), only Turner (1739, 1741) and Metcalfe (1771, 1777) were equally discomforted with the systems of parts of speech propounded and, as a result, they put alternative systems forward. Despite the general variation in the grammatical systems discussed by Michael (1970), the models of parts of speech gathered in each of the four systems were mere variations of the first model so that, in general, Michael’s four grammatical systems could be reduced to two main systems: the Latin systems and the reduced ones (Michael, 1970: 277). As a matter of fact, the ‘reduced systems’ were at their peaks from 1734 to 1761 in view of the 60 percent of the grammars published which favoured simple or reduced models of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 277- 278). However, in the 1760s the popularity of such systems decreased, especially due to Priestley’s (1761), Buchanan’s (1762) and Lowth’s (1762) “even more influential grammar” (Michael, 1970: 278), all of which propounded Latin systems. In the same way, I have argued in section 4.5. that the punctuation systems gathered in Branches 3, 4 and 5 could be considered as variations of those gathered in Branches 1 and 2 and, thereby, they could be treated as sub-branches of either Branch 1 or 2. Therefore, following Michael’s pattern, the systems of punctuation could be reduced to two main branches: Branch 1 and Branch 2, and the latter, in turn, would comprise Branches 3, 4 and 5. Unlike Michael (1970) who argued that grammarians and, above all, teachers of young children attempted to avoid complex systems (Michael, 1970: 278), hence the so-called ‘reduced systems’ of parts of speech, the systems of punctuation gathered in Branches 3, 4 and 5 cannot be considered to be ‘reduced’ systems of punctuation but, on the contrary, ‘enlarged’ systems. However, albeit ‘enlarged’, these systems of punctuation might be considered as ‘refined’ in view of the higher degree of ‘specialization’ or refinement of the so-called marks. Among his four systems, Michael (1970: 278) argued that the vernacular systems decayed, “which were commonly considered to conceal a nine− or a tenfold system beneath the appearance of a fourfold system” probably on the grounds that a higher number of elementary grammars was published during the last decades of the eighteenth century. With regard to punctuation, as Table 14 illustrates,

~~178~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Michael’s vernacular systems correspond to punctuation systems from Branches 2 and 3. Curiously, Branch 2 and, to a lesser extent, Branch 3 were supported throughout the whole century so it would be suggested that, unlike Michael’s (1970), vernacular systems of punctuation were widespread. In fact, the generic terminology analyzed from an etymological perspective has yielded relevant information about the alleged decay of the vernacular systems. As shown in section 4.7.3. above, the number of punctuation marks was high throughout the eighteenth century but punctuation marks were normally sorted into two sets whose labelling ranged from Latinate to Germanic terms: the ‘primary’ set of punctuation marks was called points or stops whereas the ‘secondary’ set of punctuation marks was overwhelmingly labelled as marks so, to a certain extent, the vernacular systems of punctuation were on the increase. Nonetheless, as shown in Table 14, the vast majority of grammars corresponded with Michael’s Latin systems and in this sense, when discussing punctuation marks, the authors were not clung to a single generic terminology but they lent towards mixing Latinate and Germanic terms.

4.7.4.1. Michael’s (1970) most recurrent system(s) of parts of speech compared to the most recurrent systems of punctuation Among the systems of parts of speech put forward by grammar writers, the one advocated by Ash (1760) was the most supported which was, according to Michael’s taxonomy, system No. 9 or the Latinate ‘tenfold system’ (Michael, 1970: 278) whereas, in the corpus of this thesis, the most supported systems of punctuation were the ones devised by Lowth (1762) and Fisher (1753). Michael (1970) avers that the system of parts of speech supported by Lowth (1762), which was labelled as system No. 10 or the Latinate ‘nine-fold system’, was the popular alternative to system No. 9, that is, Lowth’s system was the alternative to Ash’s (Michael, 1970: 278). Actually, Ash’s grammar was put forward as a simpler grammar than that of Lowth (1762) and, as such, the former was advertised as an introduction to the latter:

~~179~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 4. John Ash’s Grammatical Institutes (1761)69~~

Despite Ash’s efforts to simplify Lowth’s system of punctuation, the punctuation system propounded in Ash (1761) was more complex than the one in Lowth (1762) since the former put two different punctuation systems forward in his grammar editions and, what is more, the number of punctuation marks in his systems ranged from fourteen to twenty altogether in contrast with Lowth’s seven punctuation marks. As a way of illustration, compare the two systems of punctuation devised by Ash (1761, 1796) to the one by Lowth (1762).

~~, ; : . , ; : . ? ! Group Group 1 1 ? ! () ‘’ - “” () ‘’ “” - ’ ˆ Group Group 2 ¶ § * † ‡ ǁ ☞ ´ ˆ ’ ¶ ¨ * † ‡ 2 ǁ § ☞ ¨ --- or ― [] }~~

~~Ash (1761) Ash (1796)~~

~~Tables 15 and 16. Ash’s punctuation systems~~

~~69 As said in footnote No. 68, Michael (1970) surveyed Ash’s 1760 edition whereas I, the 1761 one. 180~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~, ; : . Group 1 ? ! () Group 2~~

~~Lowth (1762) Table 17. Lowth’s punctuation system~~

Aimed at finding similarities and differences in the inventory of authors who supported Lowth’s (1762) and Fisher’s (1753) systems of punctuation and systems of parts of speech, I have drawn upon Michael’s findings (1970). With regard to similarities, as discussed in section 4.5., Lowth’s system of punctuation was advocated by seven authors altogether:

~~Authors~~

~~Burn (1766)~~

~~Ward (1766, 1767)~~

~~Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781)~~

~~Meikleham (1781)~~

~~Webster (1784, 1787, 1787?, 1790, 1792,~~

~~1792, 1794, 1796, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1800)~~

~~Anon. 1788b~~

~~Bingham (1790, 1794, 1796, 1799)~~

~~Total No. of editions 20~~

~~Table 18. Six supporters of Lowth’s (1762) system of punctuation~~

~~One of these authors, i.e. Burn (1766), also agreed on Lowth’s nine-fold system of parts of speech since both authors were included in the Latin system No. 10 in Michael (1970):~~

~~181~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 5. System No. 10 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 225)~~

Fisher’s (1753) punctuation system was supported by three authors, i.e., Carter (1773), Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792, 1797), and, with regard to Fisher’s (1750) system of parts of speech, which was categorized as ‘vernacular’ system No. 36, only Carter (1773) agreed with her since both Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792) supported two different Latin systems: System No. 4 and No. 9, respectively, as Figures 5 and 6 illustrate.

~~Figure 6. System No. 36 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 258)~~

~~182~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 7. System No. 9 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 223)~~

Therefore, as the system of parts of speech advocated by Lowth, i.e. system No. 10, was considered the popular alternative to system No. 9, i.e. Ash’s, it might be argued that Wilson (1792), who supported Fisher’s vernacular system of punctuation, would have been supporting Lowth’s system of parts of speech to a large extent. Similarly, Anon. (1788b), who agreed with Lowth’s (1762) punctuation system, supported Ash’s system so that, like Wilson (1792), he would have been supporting Lowth’s system of parts of speech. Likewise, the aforementioned system No. 4 was not only supported by Ward (1767), who supported Lowth’s punctuation system, but also by Bettesworth, who supported Fisher’s punctuation system:

~~Figure 8. System No. 4 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 218)~~

In view of these results, I would argue that the most clear-cut differing stances have been identified in Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792), both of whom were supporters of Fisher’s punctuation system since, unlike Fisher’s vernacular

~~183~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

system of parts of speech, Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792) followed Latin systems. Finally, though Buchanan’s (1762) system was not one of the most recurrent ones, his was one of the most influential grammars (Michael, 1970: 278). With regard to Buchanan (1762), as discussed in sections 2.3. and 4.3., he was a transgressor with regard to women’s education and punctuation theory. That is, Buchanan (1762) supported woman’s learning of grammar and, as for punctuation, he took a step further thanks to his hermeneutic approach70 so, by and large, Buchanan (1762) could have taken a reforming stance. Notwithstanding, according to Michael’s taxonomy, Buchanan (1762) was a supporter of the Latin system No. 7, so it could be argued that Buchanan had a reforming spirit but just to a certain extent since even his generic terminology was more ‘Latin-sided’ (cf. his six stops, four notes or distinctions and sixteen marks or notes in the punctuation system g) type 2 within Branch 3), unlike Fisher (1753) who took an overall ‘ground-breaking’ stance towards the English grammar.

~~Figure 9. System No. 7 of parts of speech (Michael, 1970: 220)~~

4.7.5. Concluding remarks Throughout this section I have shown that authors chose generic terms whose etymologies differed between Germanic and Romanic roots so much so that I have traced a correlation between the etymology and the model of the punctuation system, that is, either a Latin or an English model. Among the inventory of generic terms encountered, stops, points and marks were the most recurrent ones

70 As discussed in section 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”, in the hermeneutic approach the rhetorical, grammatical and even pragmatic criteria are essential because punctuation marks help to transmit the semantic nuances that the writer intends to convey in the text. 184

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

and they were used in accordance with the inventory and function of punctuation marks so that a general trend has been identified: the set of ‘primary’ punctuation marks was explained in rhetorical, syntactical and semantic terms in contrast with the set of ‘secondary’ ones which was explained in orthographical ones. Accordingly, the distinction of both sets of punctuation marks led to the refinement of their generic terms as well. That is, the set of ‘primary’ punctuation marks was termed either points, which was a Latin term, or stops, which was Germanic, whereas the term marks –also Germanic– referred, according to nearly 80% of the systems analyzed, to the set of ‘secondary’ punctuation marks. Rather than labelling the latter as characters or notes, which were Latin-rooted terms, authors used the Germanic-rooted marks, consequently, EModE generic terms, which were overwhelmingly Latin, were being replaced by Germanic-rooted terms in LModE systems of punctuation. However, in view of the interchangeability of the terms points and stops, nearly 79% of the authors took an eclectic stance towards the labelling of punctuation systems so it might be argued that authors did not cling to a single model, that is, they adopted neither a reforming nor a conservative model. Unlike the 79% of authors who professed an eclectic stance, Fisher (1753) and Lowth (1762) made conscious attempts at spreading a single model since Fisher (1753) deployed solely Germanic terms whereas Lowth (1762) used only Latin ones; thus, both authors were consistent in their stances towards a reforming vernacular model and a conservative Latin one, respectively. That is why I have considered the etymology to be an indicator of the author’s covert or overt adherence to a model. In this sense, the correlation between Michael’s (1970) findings and mine has proven fruitful as similarities and differences among the 52 grammars have been encountered. Of the four grammatical systems of parts of speech in Michael (1970), the 52 grammars71 were classified in only two: the Latin and the vernacular systems. Michael’s Latin systems match the systems of punctuation gathered in my five Branches whereas Michael’s vernacular ones match those gathered only in Branches 2 and 3. As for similarities, the systems of parts of speech and the systems of punctuation have shown that the set of punctuation marks and the set of parts of speech were “mutually exclusive”, hence

~~71 As already discussed in the sub-section 4.7.4., the 52 grammars in question are the grammars that Michael (1970) and I had in common. 185~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

the variability in their arrangement. Moreover, given that the models were variable replicas of the first, Michael’s four systems are reducible to two: ‘Latin’ and ‘reduced’ ones. Likewise, the five Branches of systems of punctuation are equally reducible to two: Branch 1 and 2. Underneath the overt variability of both sorts of systems there was a covert discomfort with the systems propounded and, in general terms, the discomfort with the punctuation systems put forward was higher in view of the fact that nearly 90% of the systems was supported individually. As for differences, Michael’s findings have shown that simple or reduced systems of parts of speech implied a simplification or reduction in the classification of the parts of speech, as their name indicates, whereas the supported punctuation systems gathered in the Branches 3, 4 and 5 were ‘enlarged’, albeit ‘refined’, replicas of the simplest systems. Unlike Michael (1970) who traced a decline of vernacular systems of parts of speech, vernacular systems of punctuation marks were on the increase given that Branches 2 and 3, which match Michael’s vernacular systems, increased throughout the eighteenth century, a trend which is reinforced by the widespread use of Germanic-rooted generic terms. Finally, the most recurrent system of parts of speech, i.e. Ash’s (1760), was not the most recurrent system of punctuation, but that in Lowth (1762) and, secondarily, the one in Fisher (1753). Furthermore, the analysis of the inventory of supporters of Lowth (1762) and Fisher (1753) have yielded interesting results: some supporters of Fisher’s vernacular system of punctuation, like Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792), were conservative as far as systems of parts of speech are concerned since they followed Latinate systems. Therefore, their stances were contradictory. All things considered, as suggested at the beginning of this section, Rodríguez-Gil’s assertion (2002) is definitely applicable to the generic terminology displayed in this corpus since “the traditional conception of English” punctuation underwent a reforming or, say, a ‘refining’ movement.

~~186~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~5. Sources in the Treatments of Punctuation of Eighteenth-Century English Grammars~~

5.1. Sources of quotes and examples In order to illustrate the definition and function of punctuation marks, authors used a wide range of examples from different sources. Quotes derive from poems, religious works, periodicals and philosophical works, among others. In total, twenty-two different sources were used by authors. Moreover, some examples were repeated in grammars by different authors so, as already discussed in section 2.7., these would be instances of “customary appropriation”. Pope (1688-1744), Milton (1608-1674), periodicals like The Spectator and religious sources like Psalms, Proverbs and the Book of Romans were the main providers of the examples that illustrated punctuation rules. For example, Pope’s An Essay on Criticism (1711), The Essay on Man (1732-1734) and The Imitations of Horace (1733-1738) were a few of the most popular works chosen by authors. Fenning (1771), for example, chose Pope’s Essay on Criticism in order to discuss the uses of the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period and the braces. In this way, after having explained that the period is used at the end of a complete sentence, Fenning (1771: 158) resorted to the following quote from Pope’s An Essay on Criticism (1711): Be silent always when you doubt your Sense; Speak when you are sure, yet speak with Dissidence; Some positive persisting Fops we know, That, if once wrong, will needs be always so (Pope, 1711: 33).

Fenning (1771: 158) did not add any commentary on the previous quote, but he justified the selection of Pope’s quote on the grounds that it “contain[s] a specimen of all the points” (ibid). Moreover, convenience might be the reason why Fenning selected this quote since both authors, Fenning and Pope, were dealing with appropriateness: the former, with appropriateness in the use of punctuation in writing and the latter, with appropriateness in speaking. An Essay on Criticism received measured praise from Addison in The Spectator No. 253 (ODNB, Alexander Pope’s entry) so, as will be discussed later, Fenning (1771) might have used Pope’s essay because of Addison’s general influence on

~~187~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

eighteenth-century authors.72 Furthermore, Johnson, who was another popular source of punctuation theories (see section 5.2. below) is considered to be “the great defender of Pope in the later decades of the eighteenth century” (ODNB, ibid) so that Johnson’s influence and the fact that Pope was “valued […] as the best poet of the age” (ODNB, ibid) might explain why Pope was one of the most quoted authors in eighteenth-century grammars. The Essay on Man (1732-1734) also proved a popular source of examples. Though the first, second, third and fourth Epistles were mentioned, the third and fourth were the most often cited. With regard to the third Epistle, Lowth (1762: 168),73 Webster (1784: 137) and Ash (1785: 170) made use of the same example to illustrate the use of commas in the distinction of simple members connected by relatives and comparatives. The example is as follows: Gods, partial, changeful, passionate, unjust; Whose attributes were rage, revenge or lust (Pope, 1733: 17, lines 258-259).

~~As a way of illustration, the use of Pope’s quotation in Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) and Ash (1785) is displayed in the following figures.~~

~~Figure 10. Lowth (1762) Figure 11. Webster (1784) Figure 12. Ash (1785)~~

72 In spite of the fact that Addison was regarded as a model of good writing around 1750, he became one of the most criticized authors in Lowth’s grammar (1762) and later editions (Tieken- Boon van Ostade, 2010c: 85). Consequently, Johnson replaced Addison as the most influential linguistic model in the second half of the century (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2009: 109). 73 Curiously, though Pope was frequently quoted by Lowth (1762) as source of examples, he was one of the writers most criticised by Lowth (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010c: 85). 188

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

As to the fourth Epistle (1734), Carter (1773: 37), Corbet (1785: 40) and Coote (1788: 261) included different examples in order to illustrate the usage of the quotation marks, the ellipsis and the comma. Carter (1773) explained the quotation mark as the punctuation mark used at the beginning and at the end of a passage to specify that it has been quoted out of another author. To illustrate its use, Carter used Pope’s words and added quotation marks: “Fortune in Men has some small Diff’rence [sic] made, One flaunts in Rags, one flutters in Brocade; The Cobler apron’d, and the Parson gown’d, The Friar hooded, and the Monarch crown’d. What differ more (you cry) than Crown and Cowl! I’ll tell you, Friend! a wise Man from a Fool” (Pope, 1734: 9-10, lines 185-190).

Corbet (1785) defined the ellipsis as a black line used when some part(s) of a word, a sentence or a verse are concealed either at the beginning or at the end. Then, he quoted the following words by Pope and made further reference to the epistle’s and verse numbers: “―And Shame from no Condition rise, Act well your Part; there all the Honour lies. Pope’s Essay on Man, Ep. 4. v. 193” (ibid [emphasis added]). The relevance of Corbet’s further references lies in their singularity since most authors acknowledged solely, if at all, the source’s name and made no reference to the work consulted. Coote (1788) argued that the comma is annexed to two nouns that are related to the same verb and which are not linked by a conjunction. As an illustration, Coote (1788: 261) used the following words by Pope (1734): “That Reason, Passion, answer one great Aim” (Pope, 1734: 22, line 383). In relation to the first and second Epistles, Fenning (1771) and Story (1783) discussed the uses of the semicolon and the comma, respectively. As for the former, Fenning (1771: 157) resorted to the first Epistle to illustrate the distinction of greater members of a sentence by means of the semicolon. Thus, Hope humble then; with trembling pinions soar; Wait the great teacher, Death, and God adore! (Pope, 1733: 9, lines 87-88).

~~As for the latter, Story (1783: 66) resorted to the second Epistle to illustrate the distinction of nouns in apposition by means of commas. Thus,~~

~~LOVE, Hope, and Joy, fair Pleasure’s smiling Train, Hate, Fear, and Grief, the Family of Pain (Pope, 1733: 10, lines 107-108).~~

~~189~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Finally, Pope’s The Second Epistle of the Second Book of Horace (1737) was resorted to by Fenning (1771: 156; 158-159) in order to illustrate the use of commas in the distinction of several substantives that are not linked by a conjunction. The example was as follows: Gold, Silver, Iv’ry, Vases sculptur’d high Paint, Marble, Gems, and Robes or Persian Dye, There are who have not ― and thank Hea- V’n there are Who, if they have not, think not worth their care (Pope, 1737: 21).

Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667) also provided quotes maybe owing to the fact that it became widely regarded as “England’s national epic” (ODNB, entry for John Milton). In fact, the most influential readers in England bought its fourth edition by subscription (ODNB, ibid). The first, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth and twelfth were the six books that were chosen to illustrate the functions of the comma most often by Lowth (1762), Fenning (1771), Raine (1771), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Story (1783), Webster (1784), Ash (1785) and Hodson (1800). The functions of the comma that authors discussed are the distinctions of the vocative case, the participle in absolute case, nouns in apposition and several adjectives that are related to the same noun. It is noteworthy that three examples included in the fifth and seventh books were quoted by more than one author. With regard to the examples quoted from the fifth book, the following lines were used by Lowth (1762: 167), Webster (1784: 136), Ash (1785: 169) and Hodson (1800: 47) to illustrate the distinction of the participle in absolute case: Now Morn, her rosy steps in th’ eastern clime Advancing, sow’d the earth with orient pearl (Milton, 1667, lines 1-2).

~~As a way of illustration, the use of Milton’s quotation in Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) Ash (1785) and Hodson (1800) is displayed in the following figures:~~

~~190~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 13. Lowth (1762) Figure 14. Webster (1784)~~

~~Figure 15. Ash (1785) Figure 16. Hodson (1800)~~

Besides, the following lines were used by Fenning (1771: 159), Raine (1771: 214) and Story (1783: 67) to exemplify both the distinction of the vocative case by commas and the use of the exclamation mark: These are thy glorious works, Parent of Good!, Almighty! Thine this universal frame (Milton, 1667, lines 153-154).

~~191~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~As a way of illustration, the use of Milton’s quotation in Fenning (1771), Raine (1771) and Story (1783) is displayed in the following figures:~~

~~Figure 17. Fenning (1771) Figure 18. Raine (1771) Figure 19. Story (1783)~~

Lastly, as for the remaining example quoted from the seventh book, the following lines were used by Lowth (1762: 167), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781: 52), Webster (1784: 136), Ash (1785: 168) and Hodson (1800: 46) to illustrate the use of commas in the distinction of the vocative case: This said, He form’d thee, Adam; thee, O man, Dust on the ground. (Milton, 1667, lines 524-525).

~~As a way of illustration, the use of Milton’s quotation in Lowth (1762), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Webster (1784), Ash (1785) and Hodson (1800) is displayed in the following figures:~~

~~192~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 20. Lowth (1762) Figure 21. Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781)~~

~~Figure 22. Webster (1784) Figure 23. Ash (1785) Figure 24. Hodson (1800)~~

Quotes from periodicals such as The Spectator, The Tatler or The Adventurer were also abundant. The Spectator was cited by eight authors altogether, i.e., Lowth (1762), Fenning (1771), Raine (1771), Webster (1784), Ash (1785), Coote (1788), Postlethwaite (1795) and Hodson (1800). The issues of this periodical that the authors cited were the following: 6 (published on Wednesday, March 7, 1711), 7 (Thursday, March 8, 1711), 39 (Saturday, April 14, 1711), 73 (Thursday, May 24, 1711), 111 (Saturday, July 7, 1711), 124 (Monday, July 23, 1711), 381 (Saturday, May 17, 1712), 568 (Friday, July 16, 1714) and 631 (Friday, December

~~193~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

10, 1714). All of the aforementioned issues of The Spectator were published by Addison.74 Although most authors cited either the author or the issue, others like Ash (1785: 172) cited both the issue and its author:

~~Figure 25. Ash (1785)~~

Taking into account the amount of quotations and the number of authors, No. 73 of The Spectator (Thursday, May 24, 1711) was the most cited. Lowth (1762), Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Webster (1784), Ash (1785), Postlethwaite (1795) and Hodson (1800) were the authors who made use of the words written by Addison in such a publication. For example, the following quotation was used by most of the aforementioned authors to illustrate one of the uses of the comma: “Raptures, Transports, and Extasies, are the Rewards which they confer: Sighs and Tears, Prayers and broken Hearts, are the Offerings which are paid to them” (Ash, 1785: 169-170; Lowth, 1762: 168; Webster, 1784: 137; Hodson, 1800: 47). As Figures 26 and 27 below show, only the name of the periodical was cited by Hodson (1800) whereas its author, the periodical and its issue were cited by Ash (1785), Lowth (1762) and Webster (1784)75:

~~Figure 26. Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) and Ash (1785) Figure 27. Hodson (1800)~~

74 See section 2.5.1. where the importance of The Spectator or, as Fitzmaurice (2010: 108) refers to it, “the product of the Addison-Steele coalition”, in the eighteenth century was discussed. 75 The three of them had already cited the source in another quotation: “The passion for praise produces excellent effects in women of sense. Addison, Spect. Nº73” (Lowth, 1762: 162; Webster, 1784: 134; Ash, 1785: 165). 194

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

It is not always easy to identify the source of examples as it is not quoted faithfully. In this way, for example, according to Fenning (1771: 156-157), four quotations were extracted from The Spectator but he did not provide information on their original issues. The quotations in question were: “The conversation of most men is disagreeable, not so much for want of wit and learning, as of good- breeding and discretion” (Fenning, 1771: 156), “[a] modest person seldom fails to gain the good-will of those he converses with, because nobody envies a man who does not appear to be pleased with himself” (ibid), “whenever you commend, add your reasons for doing so; it is this which distinguishes the approbation of a man of sense from the flattery of sycophants, and the admiration of fools” (Fenning, 1771: 157) and “[n]otwithstanding all the advantages of youth, few young people please in conversation; the reason is, that want of experience makes them positive, and what they say is rather with a design to please themselves than any one else.” (Ibid). Having checked the source of the aforementioned quotations, I argue that Fenning (1771) was wrong since the four quotations actually appeared as published in The Guardian, according to The Guardian. A Corrected Edition (1806: 140), and according to the latter, the four quotations were written by Richard Steele (1672-1729) and belong to issue No. 24 (Wednesday, April 8, 1713) of The Guardian and not The Spectator. Apart from The Spectator, both the periodical The Tatler and the newspaper The Adventurer furnished grammarians with quotations. With regard to the former, Coote (1788) resorted to issue No. 111 (published in December 24, 1709) to illustrate the use of the comma in the distinction of two or more nouns that refer to the same preposition. As a way of illustration, Coote (1788) quoted the following sentence: “[Y]ou must consider him under the terrors, or at the approach, of death” (Coote, 1788: 262). With regard to the latter, Fenning (1771: 158) resorted to issue No. 82 (published on Saturday, August 18, 1753) to quote a long paragraph that illustrated the use of the period at the end of a complete sentence:

~~Figure 28. Fenning (1771)~~

~~195~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, religious works also proved useful to illustrate the function of punctuation marks because, as Pape (1790) asserted in relation to the paragraphs, The Bible includes examples of all punctuation marks. That is the reason why six authors –Maittaire (1712), Raine (1771), Corbet (1785), Coote (1788), Pape (1790) and Rhodes (1795)– resorted to Proverbs, Psalms, the Books of Romans and Sermons. Regarding Proverbs, Prov. 1:7 was quoted by Coote (1788) to exemplify what a simple sentence is: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Coote, 1788: 260). Moreover, Prov. 15:1 was quoted by Corbet (1785) to illustrate the use of the semicolon in the distinction of opposites: “A soft Answer turneth away Wrath; but grievous Words stir up Anger” (1785: 38). The same authors together with Maittaire (1712) and Raine (1771) selected some Psalms and the Books of Romans to illustrate the use of the comma, the period, the ellipsis, the colon, the interrogation mark and the parenthesis. As for Psalms, Corbet (1785: 40) quoted Ps. 39: 13 in order to illustrate the use of the ellipsis: “―That I may recover Strength before I go hence”. If we compare Corbet’s quotation to King James’s Bible, we can see a slight modification in the former since the ellipsis was deliberately introduced to replace the latter’s phrase “O spare me” (King James Bible, Authorized Version, online). Contrarily, when discussing the use of the comma in the distinction of an imperfect phrase within a simple sentence, Coote (1788: 260-261) quoted faithfully the original commas: “I will give thanks unto thee, O Lord, with my whole heart”. Interestingly, according to Maittaire (1712), the colon shows where the voice must be altered in common-prayers, Psalters, hymns and other texts that are meant to be sung. As an illustration, Maittaire (1712) quoted Ps. 130: 8: “[…] he shall redeem Israel: from all his sins” (Maittaire, 1712: 192). With regard to the Book of Romans, Raine (1771) accounted for the use of the interrogation mark and the parenthesis and, as a way of illustration, he resorted to Chapter 10, verse 14 and Chapter 7, verse 18. As displayed in King James’s Bible, the interrogation mark was used after a question: But how shall they call on Him, in whom they not have believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? (Raine, 1771: 214).

~~Likewise, the parenthesis was quoted faithfully since it appeared in King James’s Bible: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good Thing” (ibid). All~~

~~196~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

in all, it must be noted that these authors who quoted Proverbs, Psalms and the Books of Romans provided specifications on their sources since all of them mentioned the book of The Bible from which their quotations were taken and, what is more, the chapter and verse numbers. St. John Chrysostom’s Sermons were quoted by Rhodes (1795) to illustrate some punctuation marks, namely the comma and the semicolon. For instance, from St. Chrysostom’s sermon on bishops, Rhodes (1795) quoted the following: “The soul of a Bishop, therefore, ought, by all means to shine out so illustriously with the beams of virtue and goodness, as at once delight the eye and affect the heart of the spectators” (Rhodes, 1795: 61). Following with sermons, Raine (1771: 212) resorted to Laurence Sterne’s Sermon Forgiveness of Injuries in order to illustrate the general function of the semicolon: “The brave know only how to forgive; it is the most refined and generous pitch of virtue, human nature can arrive at […]” (Sterne, 1760: 111, vol. 2, No. 12). Finally, Charles Drelincourt’s Consolations against the Fears of Death (1724) was quoted by Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792) in order to illustrate the consequences of a bad punctuation practice. According to both authors, Drelincourt’s eleventh edition included a passage wherein punctuation marks were used wrongly. Consequently, in the eyes of both Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792), the sense of the passage was inverted (Fisher, 1753: 42; Wilson, 1792: 39):

~~Figure 29. Drelincourt’s Consolations quoted by Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792)~~

So far I have discussed the most frequently cited sources of punctuation illustration in eighteenth-century grammars. Other sources used to a lesser extent include well-known poets, playwrights, writers, philosophers and lexicographers. John Dryden (1631-1700) was one of the poets and playwrights that authors like Raine (1771) and Story (1783) chose as source of examples. The Works of Virgil

~~197~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

(1697), in particular The Aeneid by Virgil, Book V; Marriage à la Mode (1673, Act IV, sc. II) and All for Love (1678, Act IV, sc. I) were the works selected by authors in order to illustrate the functions of braces (Raine, 1771: 215) and commas (Story, 1783: 66). For example, according to Story (1783), one of the functions of the comma is the distinction of a simple sentence and Dryden’s Marriage à la Mode illustrates such a function accurately: So blind we are, our wishes are so vain, That what we most desire, proves most our pain (Story, 1783: 66).

Fenning (1771) and Rhodes (1795) quoted Shakespeare’s (1564-1616) plays The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eighth (1623), Julius Caesar (1623), Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1623) and Macbeth (1623). On the one hand, Fenning (1771) accounted for the parenthesis as the punctuation mark that: […] inclose[s] some short sentence, which is inserted in the body of a longer sentence, and is neither necessary to the sense, nor at all affects the construction […] (Fenning, 1771: 159).

Subsequently, as illustration, Fenning (1771) modified the following lines from Henry VIII (1623, Act 3, sc. 2, lines 441-443): Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition; By that sin fell the angels; how can man then (The image of his maker) hope to win by’t? (Fenning, ibid).

On the other hand, Rhodes (1795) argued that pauses in meditation must be lengthened, especially “when the subject is of great weight” (Rhodes, 1795: 64). As cases in point, Rhodes (1795: 64-65) quoted and added em dashes to mark the pauses in both Julius Caesar (1623, Act 2, sc. 1, lines 10-17) and Hamlet’s famous soliloquy (1623, Act 3, sc. 1, lines 56-58): To be ―or not to be ― that is the question ― […] (Rhodes, 1795: 65). Likewise, as applied to the aforementioned works by Shakespeare, em dashes mark the pauses to be made in passages of reflection like Edward Young’s Letter VI on The Dignity of Man, which is part of Young’s The Centaur not Fabulous (1755: 346). However, Young’s original passage already included hyphens: While I contemplate the grandeur of man, I feel his weakness: ― in mind and body I feel his infirmities. ―Pain, this instant stops my pen― […] (Rhodes, 1795: 65).

~~According to Rhodes (1795), unlike Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Hamlet, shorter pauses should be made in Young’s text (Rhodes, 1795: 65). Letter IV on~~

~~198~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Pleasure was another letter included in Young’s The Centaur not Fabulous (1755: 206) that Rhodes (1795: 64) quoted to illustrate the main function of the exclamation mark. In all these cases Rhodes (1795) did not cite Young’s work but solely its author as either “Dr. Young” (Rhodes, 1795: 64) or “Young” (Rhodes, 1795: 65). Furthermore, Rhodes (1795) also mentioned “P. Philosopher” (1795: 62), that is, James Forrester’s Polite Philosopher, or an Essay on that Art which Makes Man Happy in Himself, and Agreeable to Others (1734) in order to exemplify the general function of the semicolon, i.e. the distinction of “[…] any member of a sentence, that requires a greater pause than a comma […]” (Rhodes, 1795: 61). With regard to poetry, Hudibras (1700), Grongar Hill (1761) and Winter, A Poem (1726) provide Story (1783), Fogg (1792-1796) and Hodson (1800) with more quotations, respectively. The first poem, that is, Hudibras (1700), was written by Samuel Butler (1613-1680); the second poem, Grongar Hill (1726), was written by John Dyer (1699-1757) and the third one, Winter, A Poem (1761), was written by James Thomson (1700-1748). Interestingly, the aforesaid authors differed in their citations since Story (1783) did not identify the poem’s author but its title like “Hudibras” (Story, 1783: 67). Unlike Story (1783), Fogg did identify the poem’s author like “Dyer” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 66) and Hodson (1800) cited both the poem’s author and its title like “Thomson’s Winter” (Hodson, 1800: 49). In order to illustrate the use of the semicolon, Story (1783: 67) quoted a stanza that was included in the third part of Hudibras, specifically in the third song. Grongar Hill, lines 114-118, was an illustrative example of the joining of a triplet with braces, i.e. three verses that rhyme with one another: See on the mountain’s southern side, Where the prospect opens wide, Where the evening gilds the tide, How close and small the hedges lie! What streaks of meadows cross the eye! Finally, Winter, A Poem (1726) provided an example of the use of the exclamation mark as the punctuation mark that indicates admiration or any other sudden passion (Hodson, 1800: 49): And see! ‘Tis come, the glorious morn! the second birth Of Heaven and earth!

~~199~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Lastly, with regard to philosophers, one of the chapters in David Hume’s Essays and Treatises (1754), Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, was briefly quoted by Harrison (1794: 104) in order to explain the use of commas in the distinction of phrases that are included in the body of a sentence: “A long dissertation on that head would not, I apprehend, be acceptable to the public, […]” (Hume, 1754: 251). Nonetheless, Harrison (1794) modified Hume’s sentence since the former dropped the latter’s phrase “on that head”. With regard to lexicographers, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language76 (1755) was quoted by Charles Coote (1760/1-1835) in his Elements of the Grammar of the English Tongue, published in 1788. Coote (1788: 265) resorted to “Dr. Johnson” in order to illustrate the use of the semicolon as the punctuation mark annexed to members that require a greater pause than a comma “but have a dependent sentence added to them, to complete the sense of the passage”. As an illustration, Coote (1788) quoted the following sentence from Johnson (1755) and gave no further reference to the page consulted: The English language, while it was employed in the cultivation of every species of literature, has itself been hitherto neglected; suffered to spread, under the direction of chance, into wild exuberance; resigned to the tyranny of time and fashion; and exposed to the corruptions of ignorance, and the caprices of innovation (Coote, 1788: 265).

The long sentence quoted by Coote (1788) was actually included in Johnson’s preface and, interestingly, he chose a sentence that underwent modifications as far as semicolons are concerned. That is, semicolons were not included in the sentence in Johnson’s first three editions so that it reads like:

~~Figure 30. Johnson’s Preface (1755)~~

~~However, in Johnson’s fourth edition, i.e. his 1775 one, semicolons were included instead of commas and thereby we find, for the first time, Coote’s quoted sentence:~~

~~76 For a fuller account of Johnson’s Dictionary, see subsection 5.2.3 below. 200~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 31. Johnson’s Preface (1775)~~

Finally, Menander (c. 342-292 B.C.E.) and Plautus (254-184 B.C.E.)77 were the only classical sources quoted by Pape (1790: 12) and Story (1783: 68) respectively. With regard to the former, Pape (1790) defined the parenthesis as the punctuation mark that introduces a useful remark which can be omitted without injuring the rest of the sentence. As an illustration, Pape (1790: 12) quoted a short sentence from Menander and gave no further references to the work: “Covet not (says Menander) even the thread of another man’s needle”. Interestingly, the source was not provided at the end of the quotation but it was used as part of the example to illustrate the use of the parenthesis. As for the latter, the quotation used to illustrate the use of the colon was a bit longer and its source was provided at the end: I am obliged to part with my whole stock, and am resolved to sell it by auction: you that will buy my haste, here will be excellent pennyworths: my merchandize is jests and witticisms. Plautus (Story, 1783: 68).

Although both authors chose classical works translated into English, as displayed in both quotations, neither author provided any reference to the works quoted. In the case of Menander’s work, it was actually Pseudo-Menander’s Fragments, 683 and, in the case of Plautus, it was Plautus’ Stichus Act I, sc. III, 66, that is: Nunc auctionem facere decretum est mihi: Foras necessum est, quicquid habeo, vendere. Adeste sultis, praeda erit praesentium. Logos ridiculos vendo.

Interestingly, the foregoing quotation was used repeatedly in periodicals like The Adventurer, for instance, in No. 6 (Saturday, November 25, 1752) where the English and the Latin versions were provided. Consider Figure 32 below:

~~77 Plautus and Menander life-dates were taken from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (online). 201~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 32. The Adventurer No. 6 (Saturday, November 25, 1752)~~

5.1.1. Concluding remarks All things considered, as for the sources of the examples that authors provided, poems, periodicals, religious works and plays prevailed while classical sources were scarce. Furthermore, Psalms and Proverbs as well as the periodical’s issues were diverse. Likewise, three different plays by Dryden as well as three others by Shakespeare were illustrative of the punctuation theories discussed. By contrast, Paradise Lost was the sole work by Milton that authors used as a source. It is noteworthy that the vast majority of authors did not provide data on the pages consulted. Moreover, in some instances, the title of the work quoted was not provided and the author’s name was provided in its stead. Curiously, Lowth (1762), Ash (1785), Webster (1784) and Hodgson (1800) were the authors who generally agreed on the examples provided, for instance, from The Spectator and Pope’s Essay on Man. Therefore, as already argued, these examples would constitute instances of the so-called “customary appropriation” since authors have copied other’s examples. Furthermore, Fisher (1753) and Wilson (1792) quoted the same example from Drelincourt’s Consolations (1724) in order to illustrate the bad choice of punctuation marks in a text.

5.2. Sources of punctuation theory As far as sources of punctuation theory are concerned, authors cited and referred the reader to the most approved of authors and works. Essays on punctuation and on elocution as well as grammars and dictionaries written by philosophers and relevant political figures of the time, among others, constitute secondary sources. In total, sixteen different secondary sources were cited and, among them, some

~~202~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~were cited by more than one author. It was quite usual that grammar writers either cited others’ viewpoints on the topic or referred the reader to others’ works.~~

5.2.1. Treatises or essays cited With regard to treatises or essays, seven essays were cited altogether. Given that the sections analysed in this thesis are devoted to punctuation, authors cited two punctuation treatises such as Sir James Burrow’s De Usu et Ratione Interpungendi: An Essay on the Use of Pointing (1772) and Joseph Robertson’s Essay on Punctuation (1785). As discussed in Chapter 3 section 3.4.2.3., five punctuation treatises were published throughout the eighteenth century, those by Monteith (1704), Burrow (1771), Steel (1786), Robertson (1785) and Stackhouse (1800). If we take into account the secondary sources which were acknowledged in this corpus, we might argue that the most approved or the most popular punctuation treatises were Burrow (1772) and Robertson (1785). Nonetheless, these results might change if we survey the secondary sources which were unacknowledged. Sir James Burrow (1701-1782), to begin with, was a law reporter who, according to the ODNB, “[…] was elected FSA in April 1751, and FRS in April 1737, and was an honorary member of the Société des Antiquités at Kassel […] and when the society presented an address to the king on 10 August 1773 Burrow received the honour of knighthood”. Therefore, in view of his credentials, i.e. Fellow of the Royal Society as well as of the Antiquarian Society, Burrow’s notoriety was undeniable. In 1768 Burrow published A Few Thoughts upon Pointing which was improved and enlarged in his 1771 edition entitled De Usu et Ratione Interpungendi. Then, in 1772 Burrow reprinted the latter though the title was slightly modified. In the form of illustration, consider figures 33, 34 and 35 below:

~~203~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 33. Burrow (1768) Figure 34. Burrow (1771) Figure 35. Burrow (1772)~~

As Lange (2013: 35-36) argued, though Burrow (1772) was a law reporter, he felt part of the discourse community to which writers on language belonged in the light of the works he recommended. In his preface Burrow (1772) recommended his reader: […] the clear and easy Interpungendi ratio, which is added to Ger. Jo. Vossii Elementa Rhetorica, […] 1724; and the Short Introduction to English Grammar, with Critical Notes, (the second Edition corrected,) published at London in 1763 […]. I would also refer him to Aldus Manutius and Christopher Cellarius, herein after cited; and to Pages 45, 355, 356, and 393, of Bishop Wilkins’s Real Character; and also to the Second Volume of Joannis Clerici (Le Clerc’s) Ars Critica […]. And if he is at full Leisure, he may find a great deal of copious Quotation and Dissertation upon those Points and Distinctions, in the Orthographia Latini Sermonis Vetus & Nova, of Claudius Dausquius, a Grammarian of Tournay in Flanders […] (Burrow, 1772: iii-iv).

As displayed in the quotation above, Burrow furnished the reader with further references among which Lowth (1762) stood out since, as Lange (2013: 36) discussed, Burrow’s “main stated aim of the treatise” was quoted “partially from Lowth”: All that I pretend to, or attempt, is to try if I can convince the Reader, “that some Sort of Punctuation is absolutely necessary.” I do not pretend to lay down certain and indisputable Rules for it. On the contrary, I agree with the learned Author of the Short Introduction to English Grammar, “that the Doctrine of Punctuation must needs be very imperfect;” and that “few precise Rules can be given, which will hold without Exception, in all Cases;” and “that much must be left to the Judgment and Taste of the Writer:” ― And I agree with his Lordship likewise in this, “That we must be content with the Rules of Punctuation laid down with as much Exactness as the Nature of the Subject will admit; such as may serve for a

~~204~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~general Direction, to be accommodated to different Occasions, and to be supplied (when deficient) by the Writer’s Judgment.” (Burrow, 1772: iv).~~

Burrow’s deference towards Lowth’s work is relevant on the basis that the former was in line with the authors who cited the latter, as I will discuss later on. Burrow’s Essay was cited, among others, in a footnote at the beginning of Bicknell’s section on punctuation (1790: 130) as:

~~Figure 36. Bicknell’s (1790) acknowledged sources~~

As displayed in the above figure, Bicknell (1790) did acknowledge that his section on punctuation was largely based on three authors but he gave no further reference to their works. In general, a similitude between Burrow (1772) and Bicknell (1790) can be traced on the basis of their approaches to punctuation. That is, according to Lange (2013: 19), the former advocated a three-fold approach to punctuation, i.e. a mixture of rhetorical, syntactic and semantic approaches, and so did the latter (1790: 130).78 Despite Bicknell’s initial lack of further references, references to the exact information taken from Burrow (1772) were given on two pages within Bicknell’s discussion on punctuation: on page 127 Bicknell quoted Burrow’s discussion of three punctuation marks, that is, the parathesis (i.e. brackets), the parenthesis and the break (i.e. the em dash) which comprised Burrow’s pages 20 to 23; on page 128 Bicknell quoted Burrow’s discussion of the importance of punctuation in textual disambiguation that comprised Burrow’s pages 10 and 11. Thus, by means of an asterisk and an obelisk, Bicknell signalled that the aforesaid information was taken from “Sir James Burrow” as the following figures show:

~~78 In fact, Bicknell (1790) has been included within Table 3 in section 4.3. “Approaches to punctuation”. 205~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figures 37 and 38. Bicknell’s citation of Burrow (1772)~~

As said at the beginning of this subsection, Robertson (1785) was cited as well. Joseph Robertson (1726-1802) became rector of Sutton, Essex, and vicar of Horncastle, Lincolnshire, and he was also a well-known critic because of his contributions to the Critical Review and the Gentleman’s Magazine. What is more, his devotion to literary work led him to publish several works on different topics and, among them, An Essay on Punctuation (1785) stood out. Robertson’s Essay had, to my knowledge, five editions, all of which were published in London: 1785 (1st edition), 1786 (2nd ed.), 1791 (3rd ed.), 1796 (4th ed.) and 1808 (5th ed.). Besides, his Essay was reprinted in Philadelphia in 1789. Harrison (1794: 106) referred to Robertson as the secondary source from which the discussion on the colon was extracted. In this sense, it is likely that Harrison (1794) based his punctuation section on more ‘authoritative’ ones, like that of Robertson, since the discourse community of periodicals’ reviewers participated in the standardization of the English language (see section 2.5). Having compared Robertson’s first four

~~206~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

editions and the 1789 reprint, I argue that his discussion on the colon was never altered because in his discussion on the colon, which was headed “Chapter IV. Of a colon” (Robertson, 1785: 84), Robertson provided the same general description followed by five exemplified rules: This word [i.e. colon] in Greek signifies a member, or a large division of a period. It is used when the preceding part of the sentence is complete in its construction; but is followed by some additional remark or illustration, naturally arising from the foregoing member, and immediately depending on it in sense, though not in syntax (Robertson, ibid).

Harrison (1794: 106), in turn, acknowledged that his discussion on the colon was extracted from “Robertson” but, by and large, their discussions differed in length and content. As for length, Harrison devoted two pages in total to his discussion on the colon whereas Robertson, six. As for content, Harrison’s explanation of the function of the colon was a brief summary of Robertson’s general description: “A Colon generally denotes a perfect sense, yet followed by another part of a sentence with which it is particularly connected” (Harrison, 1794: 105-106). Then, unlike Robertson (1785), Harrison (1794: 106) added that the colon distinguishes clauses of imperfect sense which already contain semicolons. Furthermore, both authors illustrated their rules by means of different examples. Therefore, in view of the differences between Harrison’s and Robertson’s discussions, it might be argued that Harrison (1794) did advocate, to a small extent, Robertson’s criteria to account for the colon. Apart from references to punctuation treatises, some authors from the present corpus consulted essays on elocution and rhetoric like John Mason’s An Essay on Elocution (1748), Thomas Sheridan’s A Course of Lectures on Elocution (1762), John Walker’s Elements of Elocution (1781) and Hugh Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Letters (1783). Moreover, Charles Batteaux’s The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle (1746) was cited, as well. Mason (1706-1763), appointed to the Presbyterian pulpit in 1729 at Dorking, Surrey, and at Chestnut in 1746, was a minister whose interest in elocution led him to publish sermons, lectures and rhetorical treatises which were “more influential than original” (Cox, 1994: 170). The multiple editions of Mason’s works attest his influence on eighteenth-century rhetoric, particularly his Essay on Elocution which is referred to as “[…] one of the earliest and most influential treatises in the elocutionary movement […]” (ibid). In fact, four editions of

~~207~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Mason’s Essay were published from 1748 to 1761 (ibid). In his Essay, Mason did not relate exclusively the word elocution to the classical concept of elocutio, i.e. pronunciation and delivery, but to the eighteenth-century concept of eloquence, i.e. “oratory delivered in good taste” (Cox, 1994: 171-172; Spoel, 2001: 50). As a way of illustration, consider his opening sentence: “Elocution is a branch of Oratory, the Power and Importance of which is greater than is generally thought; insomuch that Eloquence takes it’s [sic] Name from it […]” (Mason, 1748: 3). Therefore, according to Moran (1994: 3), Mason belonged to the third school of rhetoricians, i.e. the elocutionists, who “expanded one of the most neglected canons of the classical tradition: delivery”.79 Mason used to instruct students for the ministry (Cox, 1994: 170), hence his interest in practical treatises. In this sense, Mason’s intended readers of his Essay were “those who instruct others in the Art of Reading” as well as “those who are often called to speak in Publick” (Mason, 1748: title page) so that readers received instruction on “[w]hat a bad Pronunciation is, and how to avoid it” and “[w]hat a good Pronunciation is, and how to attain it” (Mason, 1748: 5). Within the latter instructions, Mason accounted for the type of pause ascribed to each punctuation mark since rules of punctuation, among others, and their practice lead to the acquisition of an overall good pronunciation. This is the specific aspect that Crocker (1775: 61) quoted from Mason, that is, the former quoted the latter’s viewpoint on the use of punctuation marks as pause markers and included it in a footnote, as the figure below shows:

79 According to Moran (1994: 1-9), eighteenth-century rhetoricians were representatives of the major schools of rhetorical theory such as neoclassical, stylistic, elocutionary, belletristic, psychological-philosophical rhetoric and women’s rhetoric. 208

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Figure 39. Mason’s Essay (1748) quoted in Crocker (1775)~~

According to Mason (1748), the modern use of punctuation marks is so irregular that a correct pronunciation has become imperfect (Mason, 1748: 26). In other words, as the length ascribed to each punctuation mark varies from reader to reader, the pauses as well as the variations of the voice must depend chiefly on “a careful Attention to the Sense and Importance of the Subject” (Mason, 1748: 23). On the whole, Crocker (1775) only identified the author of his quotation and made no reference to the page(s) cited. However, despite the lack of further references, we can see that Crocker resorted to Mason’s Essay not only to argue that the doctrine of punctuation is irregular but also to construct his inventory of punctuation marks partially, hence the presence of the double period, the paragraph and the double paragraph in both works (Mason, 1748: 21-22; Crocker, 1775: 59-61). All in all, the very title of Crocker’s grammar, i.e. A Practical Introduction to English Grammar and Rhetoric (1775), foresees the relevance of rhetoric in his work and, moreover, Crocker’s profession as a writing schoolmaster at Ilminster (Michael, 1987: 432) might explain his attention to the rhetorical component of punctuation.

~~209~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

As to Sheridan’s Lectures (1762), two authors, namely Wright (1794) and Rhodes (1795), based their punctuation theories on Sheridan’s. Thomas Sheridan (c. 1719-1788), born in Ireland, completed his B.A. at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1738 and, then, he became an actor and theatre manager in London and Dublin until he turned an elocutionary writer and teacher (Spoel, 2001: 53, 57). As Mason, Sheridan belonged to the elocutionary school and he was concerned with the establishment of elocution as an important discipline, hence his publication of scientific-theoretical treatises on elocution devised in the form of instructional manuals for proper practice (Spoel, 2001: 53, 61). In fact, Sheridan, above all, “valued the ‘polite’ accomplishment of ‘proper and expressive’ delivery” (Spoel, 2001: 52) which was attainable by means of a ‘natural’80 conversational style of elocution. That is, Sheridan did not set rules for proper delivery in his Lectures (1762) because he considered that delivery must not be regulated by a prescribed set of mechanical rules and, thereby, he founded the so-called ‘natural’ school of elocution (Moran, 1994: 4; Spoel, 2001: 74). He was considered the “most vocal and popular promoter of the field” (ibid) because of his public lectures and print publications among which his Course of Lectures on Elocution (1762) stood out.81 His Lectures (1762) comprised popular public lectures82 he delivered to adult audiences between 1756 and 1762 in London, Bath, Dublin and Edinburgh, among other locations, and this work alongside others were very welcomed, especially by the social climbers who demanded for handbooks on “the proper management of the voice and gesture in speaking and reading” (Spoel, 2001: 57, 62). Among the contemporaneous critical reviews of Sheridan’s Lectures, we find opposite stances: in the Critical Review No. 14 (1762: 170) Sheridan’s affirmation of the status of elocution as an important part of education was “practicable and praiseworthy” (quoted from Spoel, 2001: 69) whereas in The Scots Magazine No. 24 (1762: 481) it was asserted that: [H]e is rather too sanguine in his expectations […]. One would imagine, by reading these lectures, that he considers elocution as the consummation of all earthly perfection; and that even the virtues of the heart depend, in a great measure, on the utterance of the tongue, and the gesticulations of the body (quoted from Spoel, 2001: 69).

~~80 See Parrish (1951) and Vandraegen (1953). 81 See Bacon (1964) and Benzie (1972). 82 See Mugglestone (2003). 210~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Therefore, Sheridan’s Lectures were read not only by those eager to learn to speak but also by those critics of language and discourse (Spoel, 2001: 62). With regard to grammar writers who praised Sheridan’s work, we must mention Wright (1794) and Rhodes (1795). In order to provide a further account of the use of punctuation marks as pauses, Wright (1794: 68) quoted Sheridan in a footnote within his three-page section on punctuation. Wright (1794: 68) only identified the source of his quotation as “Sheridan” and gave no further reference to the work(s) consulted. If we scrutinize Wright’s quotation, we find that he actually quoted two works by Sheridan: his Lectures (1762) and his Rhetorical Grammar (1781). As displayed in the following figure, Wright (1794: 68) opened his footnote with a small paragraph taken from Sheridan’s Rhetorical Grammar, Section VIII entitled Of the Art of Delivery, particularly from Of Pauses and Stops, page 113. Subsequently, Wright introduced an em dash to separate and to signal the beginning of a different quotation which was taken from Sheridan’s Lectures, particularly from Lecture V, page 77:

~~Sheridan’s Rhetorical Grammar Sheridan’s (1781) Lectures (1762)~~

~~Figure 40. Wright (1794)~~

Likewise, Rhodes (1795) quoted Sheridan’s Lectures (1762) and Rhetorical Grammar (1781). Unlike Wright (1794), Rhodes (1795) discussed punctuation throughout five pages and, in the form of further account of the subject, he provided five extra pages titled “Observations and Directions in the use and propriety of Stops and Pauses, from W. Sheridan and others” (Rhodes, 1795: 66). As the foregoing quotation shows, Rhodes referred to Thomas Sheridan as “W.

~~211~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Sheridan” and, after checking the passages quoted, we argue that Rhodes (1795) actually cited the two aforementioned works by Thomas Sheridan. To begin with, Rhodes (1795: 66-67) acknowledged at the end of nearly two pages that his Observations on punctuation had been taken from “Sheridan” (Rhodes, 1795: 67) and, in fact, they were taken from Sheridan’s Rhetorical Grammar, pages 113- 114. Then, Rhodes (1795: 66-67) resorted to Sheridan’s Lecture V, page 81, so as to use one of Sheridan’s examples, that is, a line from Shakespeare’s Macbeth (1623) to illustrate how it “is downright nonsense” (Rhodes, 1795: 66) because of the wrong placement of the pause:

~~Figure 41. Rhodes (1795)~~

Unlike Sheridan (1762), Rhodes (1795) explained in greater detail why the utterance “making the green one ― red” (Sheridan, 1762: 81) led to misunderstandings. Later on, in the subsection Stops and Pauses within his Observations, Rhodes (1795: 68-69) quoted another whole paragraph from Sheridan’s Lecture V, page 82, and identified it again as “Sheridan”:

~~Figure 42. Sheridan’s passage quoted by Rhodes (1795: 68-69)~~

~~All in all, we might argue, in the light of the foregoing quotations, that Rhodes (1795) agreed with Sheridan’s view of the importance of breathing pauses and~~

~~212~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

emphasis when using punctuation marks in any text. It is likely that Rhodes, who was a Methodist itinerant preacher (ECEG), conferred importance to the “polite” accomplishment of a “proper and expressive delivery” because of his bond with the pulpit oratory. Notwithstanding, Rhodes (1795) was not original at all since he dealt with punctuation and, immediately after, he relied heavily on Sheridan’s works to support his ideas instead of discussing them in his own words. Whatever the reason, it must be argued that Rhodes (1795) was a faithful follower of Sheridan’s elocutionary ideas given that he based almost the entirety of his Observations on the latter’s. Alongside Sheridan, John Walker (1732-1807) was also quoted in the present corpus. Born in Middlesex, Walker left school early and started an acting career until he turned a teacher. Both Sheridan and Walker alike were prolific elocutionists who published scientific-theoretical books on elocution to instruct on polite oral delivery as well as to promote the status of elocution as an important discipline (Spoel, 2001: 53).83 Furthermore, both elocutionists published “pronouncing” dictionaries: Sheridan’s Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1780) and Walker’s A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (1791) with the aim of fostering a standard pronunciation84 that “would promote equality” among social classes (Miller, 1997: 18, quoted from Spoel, 2001: 52; Mugglestone, 2003: 42).85 However, despite their efforts, accent became a means of signalling social class membership (Mugglestone, 2003: 42-43; Hickey, 2010: 15) and, accordingly, elocutionists were “resented by some for blurring class distinctions” as Miller argued (1997: 138, quoted from Spoel, 2001: 64). Though Sheridan and Walker published elocutionary treatises such as the former’s A Course on Lectures on Elocution (1762) and the latter’s Elements of Elocution (1781) published in two volumes, both elocutionists differed in their approaches to the topic: whereas Sheridan’s approach was excessive and grandiloquent, Walker’s was modest and more ‘down-to-earth’. That is, Sheridan’s campaign for the status of elocution as an important discipline was branded as excessive and

83 Despite their participation in the elocutionary movement, both authors had different projects since Sheridan devoted his time to public lectures and autodidactic forms of education whereas Walker established a boys’ school with James Usher at Kensington Gravel Pits in 1769 (Spoel, 2001: 59). 84 See Beal (2010b: 21-37) and Mugglestone (2010: 329-337). 85 Although Walker’s Dictionary was not the first “pronouncing” dictionary, because it was Buchanan’s (1757) (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2009: 5), Walker’s proved so successful that “Walker” became a household name in the nineteenth century (Mugglestone, 2003: 35). 213

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

incomplete; so, Walker, taking advantage of his forerunner’s alleged faults, stated modestly in his preface that “[…] some plain practical rules in a scholastic and methodical form, that would convey real and useful instruction” were needed (Walker, 1781: vii-viii, quoted from Spoel, 2001: 70). What is more, Walker (1781) “carve[d] out a narrower but perhaps firmer and more acceptable disciplinary identity for elocution” (Spoel, 2001: 72) since he linked elocution with grammar by asserting that the latter is “the basis of rhetoric and oratory” (Walker, 1781: 4, quoted from Spoel, 2001: 73). By contrast, Sheridan (1762) had associated elocution with the philosophical study of human nature which drew him charges of excess and absurdity from contemporaneous critics (Spoel, 2001: 72). As a way of illustration, consider the critical review of Walker’s Elements (1781) in the Monthly Review No. 65 (1781: 81): The Author of these Elements appears to us, to have been particularly successful in his attempt to reduce the principles and rules of elocution into a system; and, in the course of his work, to have advanced many things, which merit attention on account of their originality as well as their utility.

As displayed in the foregoing quotation, Walker (1781) set prescriptive rules for proper elocution and explained them in detail so that he became representative of the so-called ‘mechanical’86 approach to elocution in contrast with Sheridan who was representative of the ‘natural’ one (Moran, 1994: 4; Spoel, 2001: 56). That is, Walker (1781) codified prescriptive or ‘mechanical’ rules to regulate delivery but, in Moran’s words (1994: 4), “[…] virtually all elocutionists viewed their work as helping the orator speak naturally” and they differed in the amount of rules provided to “help perfect nature” (ibid). In relation to Walker’s Elements of Elocution (1781), Harrison (1794) referred to Walker as an “ingenious writer to whom I am indebted for some of the foregoing observations” (Harrison, 1794: 110) and, subsequently, quoted the following verses for a general direction with regard to pauses: In pausing, ever let this rule take place, Never to separate words in any case That are less separable than those you join: And, which imports the same, not to combine Such words together, as do not relate So closely as the words you separate (Walker, 1781: 109, vol. 1).

~~86 See Grover (1969). 214~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Interestingly, Harrison (1794), who also quoted Robertson’s Essay on Punctuation (see above), followed Robertson’s trail since both authors referred to Walker as “an ingenious writer” (Robertson, 1785: 75; Harrison, 1794: 110). Nonetheless, Robertson (1785) and Harrison (1794) differed in the amount of references provided given that the former gave detailed references to Walker as “Walker’s Elem. of Elocution, vol. i. p. iii” (Robertson, 1785: 75) whereas the latter simply identified his source as “Walker on Elocution” (Harrison, 1794: 110). In any case, it might be argued that Harrison (1794), who was a Presbyterian Minister in Manchester, master of an academy as well as tutor in classics and belles letters at the Manchester Academy (ECEG), resorted to Walker’s Elements (1781) because of their similar concerns. That is, as schoolmasters, both Harrison and Walker were concerned with elocution since it was intrinsically connected to grammar87 and, moreover, they were aware of the importance of proper oral delivery given their professions of minister and actor, respectively. Blair’s Lectures (1783) are mentioned in Fogg’s discussion of punctuation marks. Hugh Blair (1718-1800), minister of the Church of Scotland and literary critic (ODNB), was the most influential belletristic rhetorician of his time (Moran, 1994: 5) and, unlike Mason (1748), did not embrace classical rhetoric. According to Moran (1994: 4-5), the belletristic rhetoric was the fourth eighteenth-century tendency within the rhetorical tradition which, basically, was focused on the usefulness of rhetoric as a “method of literary criticism” (Moran, 1994: 4). In this sense, belletristic theorists, who based their theories on others’ from the continent, did not concentrate on the “creative act” but on aspects of the “interpretive act” (Horner, 1983: 117, quoted from Moran, 1994: 4) so, accordingly, they studied different disciplines like history, literature, linguistics and biography, which were “of language use” (Moran, 1994: 4). As a case in point, Blair’s Lectures (1783), which were divided into three volumes, dealt with language, taste, syntax, figurative language, eloquence –including samples from The Spectator within the second volume– poetry, philosophical writing, tragedy and comedy, among others. Blair’s concern with the analysis and production of texts (Moran, 1994: 5) explains why he devoted so many pages to the classification, explanation and illustration of literary texts as those mentioned above. Overall, belletristic

~~87 With regard to punctuation, Harrison (1794: 98-99) asserted that “[p]oints are used in writing for a double purpose, and have respect both to grammar and to elocution”. 215~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

theorists formed a discourse community or, in Moran’s words, a “loosely connected group of theorists” (Moran, 1994: 5) who had academic posts and chairs like Blair, appointed the first Regius Professor of Rhetoric in 1762 by King George III (ibid). As stated above, Fogg (1792-1796)88 cited a passage from Blair’s Lectures (1783) but he only identified the latter as “Dr. Blair” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184). Fogg (1792-1796) asserted that the exclamation mark had been used freely by many writers and, as an illustration, he resorted to an anecdote related by Blair which was part of Lecture XVII: Comparison, Antithesis, Interrogation, Exclamation and other Figures of Speech within Blair’s first volume (pages 423-424). According to this anecdote a reader refused to peruse a book after having realized that the publication was full of exclamation marks (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184) so, on the whole, Fogg (1792-1796) and Blair (1783) agreed on the delimitation of the use of the exclamation mark to “burlesque pieces, where wonderment is feigned” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184) because, in Blair’s view, “[n]othing has a worse effect than the frequent and unseasonable use of them [exclamation marks]” (Blair, 1783: 423). Finally, with regard to Batteaux’s treatise (1746), Rhodes (1795) asserted that, according to “Abbé Batteaux” (Rhodes, 1795: 67), people perceive the use and expedience of pauses in discourse due to the necessity of taking breath (Rhodes, ibid):

~~Figure 43. Batteaux citation in Rhodes (1795)~~

~~88 For a fuller biographical account of Fogg, see subsection 5.2.2 below. 216~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Rhodes (1795) was citing Charles Batteaux (1713-1780),89 an eighteenth-century French philosopher who was the author of Les Beaux Arts réduits à un meme principle (1746), i.e. The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle. Batteaux (1746) followed James Harris’s Three Treatises (1744) in his assertion that the common and distinguishing feature of the arts is imitation,90 and thereby he argued that the arts, which must imitate nature, are addressed to taste (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Batteaux’s treatise (1746), moreover, is regarded as the treatise which “contains the first modern attempt to give a systematic theory of art and aesthetic judgment that will show the unity of the phenomena and their common practice” (Encyclopaedia Britannica) and it is also the treatise from which the distinction between the fine and useful arts stemmed (ibid). Likewise, with regard to punctuation, as displayed in figure 43 above, Batteaux (1746) discussed and reduced the rules of punctuation to the “laws of taste” in both prose and poetry since punctuation marks must ‘imitate’ the ‘nature’ of breathing pauses. Therefore, Rhodes (1795) agreed not only with Sheridan’s elocutionary approach to punctuation but also with Batteaux’s aesthetic approach.

5.2.2. Grammars cited As for grammars, five grammars were cited altogether: Claude Buffier’s A French Grammar on a New Plan (1709), William Perry’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1775), James Buchanan’s The British Grammar (1762), Robert Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) and Thomas Sheridan’s Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language (1781). Regarding Buffier’s French Grammar (1709), Maittaire (1712) commented on the use that Buffier makes of commas. Claude Buffier (1661-1737) is described as a French philosopher, historian, educator and philologist who taught philosophy and theology at Rouen and literature at the Jesuits’ College in Paris.91 In 1709 Buffier wrote his Grammaire Franҫoise sur un Plan Nouveau which was “widely used” (Encyclopaedia Britannica) by, for instance, Michael Maittaire in English Grammar: or, an Essay on the Art of Grammar (1712). Maittaire (1668-1747) was a typographer, classical scholar, writer and master of school who was born in

89 Oxfordreference.com accessed in 10th February, 2014. 90 See the entry for ‘aesthetics’ in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Academic Edition (online). 91 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Academic Edition (online). 217

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Rouen. With regard to his educational background, Maittaire obtained his B.A. and M.A. at Westminster School, Oxford, and he became a classical scholar in Cambridge. Furthermore, librarian and writer of more than seventy works, Maittaire was mainly interested in classical languages though his ‘capabilities’ were mainly attributed to the Greek language. In fact, he included commentaries on Greek, Latin and Hebrew punctuation in his English Grammar so that his is an illustrative example of a useful albeit old-fashioned scholarly work (Vorlat, 1964: 78, 80, vol. 1; quoted from ECEG). When discussing the functions of the comma, Maittaire (1712: 195) resorted to “Mr. Buffier” in order to discuss others’ viewpoints of the comma and, subsequently, gave his own opinion: Mr. Buffier in such very short clauses writes, that even the Comma may be spared, where the governments are alike; as Alexander conquered Asia and he established the Monarchy of the Greeks. But not, where they are different; as the French excel in Tragedy, and the Ancients have no advantage over them in this particular. I have inserted his own examples (Maittaire, 1712: 195).

As Maittaire (1712) himself acknowledged, the examples were translated from Buffier but he gave no reference to the page(s) consulted. Actually, Maittaire (1712) quoted two sentences from Buffier’s fifth section on “La Ponctuation”, more specifically from the latter’s “Troisieme Partie”, page 422, paragraph No. 981, which were: Aléxandre conquit l’Asie & it établit la Monarchie des Grecs, on the one hand, and nos Franҫois ont excellé dans la Tragédie, & les Anciens ne l’emportent pas sur nous en ce point, on the other. Curiously, unlike the rest of the authors discussed so far, Maittaire (1712) quoted Buffier (1709) with the aim of showing his disagreement with the latter’s omission of commas between short clauses (Maittaire, 1712: 195) since, as he said, “[I] can’t be of his opinion, nor dare jumble two finite Verbs together without distinction”. By contrast, Maittaire (1712: 200) resorted to Buffier (1709) later again to support his statement that the rules of punctuation cannot be entirely ascertained since they are applied differently by writers, as “the learned Buffier very judiciously observes […]”. As for Perry (1775), Burr (1797) referred the reader to Perry’s Comprehensive Grammar (1775) on the grounds that Perry’s work comprises “[…] more particular directions concerning punctuation, and an explanation of the other marks, characters, abbreviations, &c. found in books […]” (Burr, 1797: 49). William Perry (1747-post 1805) was a Scottish lexicographer, writer, master of an academy in Edinburgh and surgeon in the Royal Navy (ECEG). Among his

~~218~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

works, his Royal Standard English Dictionary, published in 1775, was the “most important work of his life” (Sturiale, 2006: 146, quoted from ECEG) given its huge popularity, especially in America. As stated, the great success of Perry’s Royal Standard English Dictionary (1775) to which a Comprehensive Grammar was prefixed, is attested with the number of editions and reprints published: according to ECEG, nine editions came out in Scotland and London besides five editions in Boston (USA). On the whole, its first four American editions sold 54,000 copies (Sturiale, 2006: 150, quoted from ECEG). From America could have been Jonathan Burr (1757-1842)92 whose Compendium of English Grammar was published in 1797 in Boston, America, and as I mentioned earlier, Burr (1797: 49) referred the reader to Perry’s Comprehensive Grammar (1775) maybe because of the latter’s undeniable success in the United States. What is more, it is interesting to note that the first edition of Perry’s Dictionary, i.e. the 1775 published in Edinburgh, did not contain any discussion on punctuation whereas his first American edition, i.e. the 1788 published in Worcester (Massachusetts), did and such a discussion comprised rules of punctuation, abbreviations and capitals throughout six pages altogether (from pages 52 to 57), as Burr (1797: 49) suggested. Bicknell (1790: 128) quoted Sheridan’s discussion on the importance of intonation from the latter’s Rhetorical Grammar (1781). Alexander Bicknell (d. 1796) was a book-maker, editor and printer whose origins are unknown (ECEG). Well-known for his editing career which “brought him near to commercial success” (ODNB), Bicknell was, according to The European Magazine from July 1787 (ibid), a prolific author albeit controversial given his disputes with Joseph Priestley (see entry for Alexander Bicknell in the ODNB). Among Bicknell’s works, his Grammatical Wreath; or, a Complete System of English Grammar published in London in 1790 was praised and, at the same time, regarded as over- elaborated so that it was considered more suitable for teaching than for scholarly work (ODNB). As argued above, Bicknell (1790: 128) –as also did Wright (1794) and Rhodes (1795)-93 cited Sheridan’s Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language which was “calculated solely for the Purposes of Teaching Propriety of

~~92 According to ECEG, the origin of Jonathan Burr has been assigned to America following Sundby et al. (1991: 15). 93 See subsection 5.2.1. above. 219~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Pronunciation, and Justness of Delivery” (Sheridan, 1781: title page). Bicknell (1790) was consistent in the acknowledgment of his sources since he included, in the form of footnotes, the author and –though not always- the work consulted. Thus, on page 128, Bicknell quoted an almost-entire paragraph included within “*Sheridan’s Rhetorical Grammar” that corresponded to the latter’s pages 111- 112 and in which Sheridan (1781) stated that not only does intonation consist of the rising or lowering of the voice, but also the suspension of the voice before certain pauses. Bicknell’s grammar was, in broad terms, “a selection of the most instructive rules from all the Principal English Grammars” (1790: title page), hence his references to Sheridan (1781), Buchanan (1762) and Burrow (1772) in his discussion on punctuation as well as to “*Walker, Holmes, Ward, Gibbons,” in his discussion of the rhetorical figures (1790: 129). As argued, Buchanan’s (1762) grammar was also quoted by Bicknell (1790) since, as already mentioned, Bicknell (1790: 130) acknowledged his sources in a footnote and Buchanan, among two others, was cited. James Buchanan (1753- 1773) was a Scottish grammarian, lexicographer and master of a boarding school in Surrey (ECEG). Among his works, his British Grammar published in 1762 in Middlesex, London, was targeted at the middle-class children and youth. His grammar had three editions in the UK, i.e. the 1762, 1768 and 1779, as well as an American reprint in Boston, i.e. the 1784 edition (ECEG). Being one of the most successful grammars in the 1760s together with Priestley’s (1761) and Lowth’s (1762) (Michael, 1970: 278),94 Buchanan’s was representative of others’ such as Wallis (1653), Greenwood (1711) and Harris (1751) (Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 138-139; quoted from ECEG). Similarly, Bicknell’s grammar (1790) was eclectic, as I have already discussed, and in view of Buchanan’s popularity, it is probable that Bicknell regarded the latter as source of relevant information. However, unlike the passages quoted from Lowth (1762), Burrow (1772) and Sheridan (1781), Buchanan’s were not identified. Thus, though Bicknell (1790: 130) acknowledged that his section on punctuation was compiled from “Mason, Sir James Burrow, Buchanan”, no guidance was given to what passages were quoted from Buchanan (1762). Despite this, the unacknowledged passage was identified easily since Bicknell’s general definition of punctuation was

~~94 See subsection 4.7.3. within section 4.7. “Generic Terms”. 220~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~overwhelmingly based on Buchanan (1762). As a way of illustration, compare the following figures which stand for Buchanan’s and Bicknell’s introductory definitions of punctuation:~~

~~Figure 44. Buchanan (1762: 49) Figure 45. Bicknell (1790: 130)~~

Last but not least, Lowth’s grammar was the most cited by writers.95 Robert Lowth (1710-1787), born in Winchester, England, was a grammarian, professor of poetry at Oxford, Hebrew scholar and biblical critic (ODNB). Furthermore, with regard to his religious career, he became Bishop of London in 1777, among other nominations. Lowth obtained his M.A. in New College in 1737 and then became a fellow. Besides, he became Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1756 and that of Göttingen. Admirer of James Harris’s Hermes (1751) (Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 588-589, quoted from ECEG), Lowth published his first and only work on the English language in 1762 whose title was A Short Introduction to English Grammar: with Critical Notes. Contrary to the general belief, Lowth did not write his grammar as bishop of London so that his post did not influence his linguistic choices, as Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010d: 1-2) has shown. In this sense, Lowth’s grammar was extremely successful not because of his “high status in the church” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010d: 2) but because of his publisher’s campaign by means of which Lowth’s grammar was devised as a grammar on linguistic errors committed by ‘the best authors’ (ibid). Thus, Lowth (1762) was “warning his readers not to transgress” grammatical rules (Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 588-589, quoted from ECEG). As a result, Lowth’s grammar, which was targeted at children and adults, was a simple and

~~95 For a fuller account of Lowth’s influence on eighteenth-century grammars, see next section 5.3.“Instances of plagiarism”. 221~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

conservative work that received both praising and criticism96 and which, on the whole, ran through more than 50 issues, sold more than 34,000 copies and was translated into German by Reichel in 1790 (ODNB). The immediate success of “Lowth’s grammar”97 was obvious given, above all, the enormous influence it exerted on “forming the character of numerous grammars that have since been used as school books, in Great Britain and the United States” (Lyman, 1922: 34, quoted from ECEG). As a case in point, we must consider Fogg’s (1792-1796). Biographical data on Peter Walkden Fogg (1765-1824) are scarce but, in broad terms, it is stated he was a schoolmaster in Stockport (Michael, 1970: 562). As such, he published his Elementa Anglicana; or, the Principles of English Grammar explained and exemplified, in a Method entirely new from 1792 to 1796 in two separate volumes and which was targeted at “pupils” (Fogg’s title page). Fogg’s grammar was intended as a copious collection of rules, examples and exercises, as the very title page shows, and whose grammatical system was very similar to that of Lowth (Alston, 1970: EL facsimile, note; quoted from ECEG). Delving into philological and grammatical discussions, Fogg (1792-1796) presented twenty-five extra dissertations and, among them, his tenth dissertation entitled “On Stops and other Marks” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 181-185) was devoted to punctuation. As argued above, Lowth’s grammar formed the character of Fogg’s on the basis that the latter acknowledged that “[t]he rules of punctuation, vol. i. chap. 5. with the enlargements in this dissertation, contain the substance of Dr. Lowth’s elaborate essay on the subject, at the end of his introduction” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 183). Interestingly, Fogg (ibid) added that he explains “the nature and difference of the stops more clearly, and more certainly” than Lowth (1762) on the grounds that his remarks are discussed “[w]ith less abstruse distinction”. Thus, besides, despite the widespread belief that Fogg’s grammatical system was largely based on Lowth’s, it must be said that Fogg’s punctuation system departed from that of Lowth and this is clear from the differing number of punctuation marks recognized and discussed by them. That is, whereas Lowth (1762) defined and discussed seven punctuation marks altogether, Fogg (1792-1796) discussed twenty-three. Shaw (1778), similarly, cited Lowth (1762). John Shaw (1729-

96 See Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 588-589. 97 Although Lowth’s grammar was published anonymously, his grammar was advertised, reviewed and known as “Lowth’s grammar” (see Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010d). 222

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

1796) was a reverend and headmaster of a free grammar school in Lancashire, as the very title of his A Methodical English Grammar, published in 1778, shows. Run through five editions in the UK (Kennedy, 1927: ref. 5879; quoted from ECEG), Shaw (1778) comprised “a variety of examples and exercises” (Shaw, 1778: title page) to illustrate his rules, as Fogg (1792-1796) also advertised. Shaw (1778: 20) repeated Lowth’s rules of the comma and resorted to “Dr. Lowth” to support their veracity. That is, the former agreed that the comma is better omitted between two short members in a comparative sentence as “Dr. Lowth says” (Shaw, 1778: 20). Therefore, in view of their similar marketing strategies, it can be argued that Shaw (1778) and Fogg (1792-1796) cited Lowth (1762) to gain supporters but, unlike Shaw (1778), Fogg (1792-1796) tried to depart from Lowth (1762) to gain some originality.

5.2.3. Dictionaries cited Four dictionaries were also mentioned as sources: Ephraim Chambers’ Cyclopaedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1728), Robert Ainsworth’s Dictionary of the Latin Tongue (1736), Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Julius Bate’s Critica Hebraea, or a Hebrew- English Dictionary without Points (1767). In order to provide further details on the topic, Fisher (1753: 39) explicitly stated that, according to Chambers’ Dictionary (1728), the difference between the semicolon and the colon was not ascertained by grammarians: *Chambers’ Dictionary says, Grammarians are not agreed about the precise Difference between the Colon and the Semicolon; and therefore those two Pauses seem to be used by many Authors indifferently.

Ephraim Chambers (c. 1680-1740) was an encyclopaedist educated at Heversham grammar school, Westmorland, and apprenticed to John Senex, the map and globe maker (ODNB). His encyclopaedia, entitled Cyclopaedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, was published in 1728 by subscription and it was dedicated to the King. Chambers’ Cyclopaedia became “the first true general encyclopaedia” because of his inclusion of cross-references and more extensive information of the humanities (ODNB). Besides, thanks to the recognition of its value, Chambers was elected a member of the Royal Society one year later. As a way of illustration, the title pages of his first and second editions show the

~~223~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

evolution of his credentials from “E. Chambers Gent.” (1728 [emphasis added]) to “E. Chambers, F.R.S.”, i.e. Fellow of the Royal Society, (1738 [emphasis added]). The importance of his encyclopaedia was also reflected in the number of editions and reprints launched since, to my knowledge, seven editions altogether came out: 1728 (1st edition), 1738 (2nd ed.), 1739 (3rd ed.), 1741 (4th ed.), 1743 (5th ed.), 1750 (6th ed.) and 1751-52 (7th ed.). Moreover, Chambers, as other contemporaries, devoted his time to writing reviews of new books in The Literary Magazine (1735-1737) (ODNB). With regard to Fisher’s (1753) citation of Chambers, we can see in the above quotation that Fisher (1753) identified both the author and the work as “Chambers’ Dictionary” but she provided no page numbers. She was actually referring to Chambers’ section on the colon included in the first volume (page 257). That is, according to Fisher (1753: 39), a colon “is made use of to distinguish a perfect Sentence, which has a full Meaning of its own; but yet leaves the Mind in Suspence and Expectation to know what follows” and, similarly, Chambers (1728: 257) claimed –citing others– that “[a] Colon is to be used when the Sense is perfect, but the Sentence not concluded” though, then, he affirmed that this function of the colon is not “over clear and express”. Immediately after, Chambers argued that “[a]dd to this, that in Practice our best Writers confound the Colon with the Semicolon”. As for the second function of the colon advocated by Fisher (1753), she stated that the colon is used before comparative conjunctions in a similitude, like in “[a]s an ill Air may endanger a good Constitution: So may a Place of ill Example endanger a good Man” (Fisher, 1753: 39. [Emphasis added]), and, similarly, Chambers (1728: 257) asserted that the colon is used instead of the semicolon before conjunctions “Adversative, Restrictive, Conditional, &c.”. Though Chambers (ibid) did not mention comparative conjunctions explicitly, he concluded in a later commentary that the comparison splits a sentence into two parts separated by a colon and within each of these two parts there are simple members separated, in turn, by semicolons as in: As we perceive the Shadow to have moved along the Dial, but did not perceive it moving; and it appears the Grass has grown, tho no body ever saw it grow: So the Advances we make in Knowledge, as they consist of such minute Steps, are only perceivable by the Distance. [Chambers, ibid. Emphasis added].

~~All in all, in view of their assertions, it can be argued that Fisher (1753) agreed with Chambers (1728) to a great extent and quoted his Dictionary since it was a~~

~~224~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

well-known work. Likewise, Johnson’s Dictionary was used by Coote (1788) and Pape (1790) to clarify the function of the colon and the semicolon. Samuel Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire, and he was a man of letters and lexicographer (ODNB) among whose written works his contributions to periodicals like The Rambler (1750-1752) and newspapers like The Adventurer (1752-1754) stood out. It was Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) that became an extremely popular work since, among other merits, it was “regarded as a standard authority” (ODNB) and “the most important dictionary of the English language before the OED” (Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 482-483, quoted from ECEG). The thirteen editions and several reprints of Johnson’s Dictionary (1755) attest its importance and, in fact, the first American edition appeared more than half a century later in Philadelphia, that is, in 1819 (ODNB). His dictionary was a commissioned work devised to replace the “semi-standard Dictionarium Britannicum of Nathan Bailey (1730)” (ODNB). Johnson’s Dictionary, whose main aim was the standardization of English, was on the whole a descriptive, prescriptive and proscriptive work which comprised a preface, an English grammar and a discussion of the history of the English language (Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 482-483, quoted from ECEG). As stated in the beginning, Daniel Pape (1756/7-1807), a reverend, cited Johnson’s viewpoint of the function of the colon in his Key to the English Grammar published in 1790: According to Johnson, its particular use cannot be ascertained; yet it is always used when there is a similitude in the sentence, and where the subject matter cannot be called entirely, though almost, complete (Pape, 1790: 11).

As displayed in the quotation above, Pape solely identified the author who argued in his entry for the colon that “[i]ts use is not very exactly fixed” (Johnson, 1755). Unlike Pape (1790), Johnson (1755) argued that the colon was used to mark a pause “greater than that of a comma and less than that of a period” and was usually confused “by most” with the semicolon, as Chambers (1728: 257) also argued. Pape (1790) as well as Fisher (1753) and, to a large extent, Chambers (1728) agreed that the colon is used when the sentence has “full meaning of its own” (Fisher, 1753: 39) and still depends on what follows. In the case of Johnson (1755), though he did not assert categorically that the colon is used “where the sense is continued without dependence of grammar and construction” he, in a similar way, suggested that it is “perhaps” only where “we should place it”. All in

~~225~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

all, in view of Pape’s definition of the colon, we can argue that he resorted to Johnson’s popularity to support his view which, to a large extent, coincided with Fisher’s and Chambers’. As an authority for classical Latin, Ainsworth’s Dictionary was quoted by other schoolmasters like Fogg (1792-1796). Robert Ainsworth (1660-1743) was a lexicographer and schoolmaster whose educational background is still unknown (ODNB). Considered to have been too far in advance of his time because of his proposals for educational reform, Ainsworth published The most natural and easie way of institution in 1698 in which he discussed the advantages of new teaching methods and the drawbacks of contemporaneous ones. That is, Ainsworth (1698) doubted the efficiency of both Lily’s Latin Grammar, at some points, and the learning of texts by heart. Among other proposals, Ainsworth (1698) promoted small class-sizes for same-aged pupils who should be rewarded for their proficiency instead of being punished. Furthermore, he advocated the total-immersion method (ODNB). Ainsworth became a reputable man since, among other merits, he was nominated to undertake a new English and Latin dictionary by 1714 and he was elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries by 1724 (ibid). Ainsworth’s Thesaurus Linguae Latinae compendiarius: Or, a compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue, Designed for the Use of the British Nations, published in 1736 as a quarto edition in two volumes, was “the crowning glory of his career” (ibid) because it became extremely popular. In fact, his dictionary was published in over thirty editions and abridgments, the latter of which came out in 1882, and it “marked a major advance in English lexicography” owing to his explanations of homonyms, translations from Latin and copious illustrative quotations from classical authors, thanks to which the dictionary was further considered an authority for classical Latin (ibid). As stated above, it is likely that Fogg (1792-1796) resorted to Ainsworth because of the latter’s credentials which were, in part, shared by Burrow (1701-1782) (see subsection 5.2.1. above) as the latter was fellow of the Society of Antiquaries too. However, unlike Burrow, Ainsworth did not ‘boast’ of his fellowship on the title page of his Dictionary (1736) given that he solely referred to himself as “Robert Ainsworth”. According to Fogg (1792-1796: 184), though the paragraph mark is used as mark of reference, another punctuation mark is being used by writers, that of section. So as to justify his assertion, Fogg (ibid) resorted to Ainsworth’s

~~226~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Dictionary (1736) as the original source of information on the punctuation mark that stands for section. Consider Fogg’s explanation: The paragraph mark is used principally, if not solely, in the Bible; where its use seems to be about the same with the other paragraph or break. The section employed by other writers is I think of about the same power as the double break. It is said by Ainsworth, in his Latin Dictionary, to be two s s (§) and to stand for signum sectionis. These two stand for marks of reference (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184 [emphasis added]).

As displayed in the quotation above, Fogg (1792-1796) identified both the author and the work of his quotation. In his entry for the paragraph, Ainsworth (1736) argued that the paragraph mark, i.e. ¶, and the section, i.e. §, stand for ‘caput’ and, unlike Fogg (1792-1796), he provided further explanation of the etymology of the paragraph which was used “in imitation of the parascha, or mark used by the Jews to denote their sections in reading the old law” (Ainsworth, 1736: entry for paragraph). All in all, in view of their assertions, Ainsworth (1736) and Fogg (1792-1796) equated the paragraph mark with the section one. Finally, according to Hodgson (1770), there are literal and numeral characters as well as abbreviations that cannot be learned by means of rules but by means of observation and experience (Hodgson, 1770: 166). He supports his statement with a reference to Bate’s Critica Hebraea (1767). Julius Bate (1710-1771), born in Kent, was a clergyman of the Church of England and theological writer (ODNB). As for his religious career, Bate was ordained deacon in London in 1734 as well as priest at St. David’s in 1735. As for his educational background and career, he took his M.A. in Cambridge at St. John’s College in 1742 and was appointed rector of Sutton, Sussex, in 1735 and later of Clapham, also in Sussex. In fact, on the very title page of Bate’s Critica Hebraea: or, a Hebrew-English Dictionary without Points (1767) we read that his credentials are “[…] Julius Bate, M.A. Rector of Sutton, in Sussex”. 98 Considered “the culmination of his life’s mission” (ODNB), Bate’s Critica Hebraea (1767) showed a typological approach to scriptures (ibid)99 whereby the “precise correspondence” between the Hebrew language of The Bible and reality was possible due to the non-inclusion of points (ibid). Thus, the “hydra of pointing” (Bate, 1767: iii), according to Bate, leads to

98 See entry for Julius Bate in the ODNB. 99 As Salmon (1988) stated, Hebrew punctuation became a potential source of early English punctuation theory. As a case in point, the colon primarily divided the verse into halves in Psalms and, subsequently, it divided a sentence into two (Salmon, 1988: 307-308). 227

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

the loss of this “harmonious meaning” (ODNB). As stated in the beginning, Hodgson (1770: 166) advised the reader to “[s]ee Bate” when discussing the importance of observation and experience in the learning of literal and numeral characters as well as abbreviations. Hodgson (1770) was a master of grammar school in Southampton as well as a reverend (ECEG) so that Hodgson and Bate shared theological and teaching careers. However, Hodgson (1770) resorted to Bate (1767) in the former’s discussion of punctuation marks and the latter, curiously, was a well-known ‘anti-punctuation’ arch-exponent. This notwithstanding, both authors agreed that the fewer the grammatical rules, the better on the grounds that “common sense” (Bate, 1767: v) and “observation” (Hodgson, 1770: 166) suffice to show the grammar to the learner.

5.2.4. Concluding remarks All things considered, on the whole, over thirteen authors acknowledged and quoted secondary sources. In view of the philosophers, political figures, orthoepists, grammar writers and lexicographers cited, among others, authors chiefly opted for contemporary authors in order to support their theories. The vast majority of authors consulted and cited both grammatical and rhetorical works given the dual function of punctuation marks, hence the citation of grammars, dictionaries and essays on elocution. However, in line with the scarcity of eighteenth-century essays on punctuation, quotations were scant. It is also noteworthy that among the eighteenth-century English grammars analyzed, only those by Buchanan (1762) and Lowth (1762) were regarded as grammars worthy of mention. However, as discussed so far, Lowth’s mentioning was not a chance result. Generally speaking, Lowth and Sheridan were the only two authors that were cited as secondary sources in more than two grammars. Moreover, given that two of Sheridan’s works, that is, his grammar and his course, were cited in grammars, I might argue that Sheridan was one of the most important sources of punctuation theory for other authors. Interestingly, Walker was the sole author who was recognizably admired since he was referred to as “an ingenious writer”. Despite the respect that authors professed to others’ works, Maittaire (1712) was the sole author who explicitly mentioned his disagreement with another author, not least, Claude Buffier (1661-1737).

~~228~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

5.3. Instances of plagiarism As Buschmann-Göbels (2008: 90) stated, “[…] the dependence on previous works is a fruitful help for the historiographer in tracing the existence of possible influence between the works”. It is precisely the tracing of “influence between the works” what I mean to do in this section. Having analyzed the 238 editions that include a ‘complete’ section on punctuation, I finish my analysis with a discussion on the instances of plagiarism identifiable in the section of punctuation of the earliest grammar editions available in ECCO. As discussed in section 2.7, there are different levels or types of plagiarism such as unacknowledged copying, “interlingual plagiarism”, “customary appropriation” and “true” plagiarism, and by tracing instances of all these four we can see the influence that some grammarians exerted at the time. Of the four types of plagiarism, those of “customary appropriation”, i.e. the copying of other’s examples and the like, have been already identified and discussed in detail in section 5.1. so in this section I will analyze mainly instances of unacknowledged copying and “true” plagiarism found in this corpus. However, as shown later, some instances might be regarded differently as cases of “acknowledged” copying. Plagiarism or, in other words, copying verbatim, has been identified not only in some particular definitions but also in the entire punctuation section. To begin with exact copies, Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) plagiarized the entire punctuation section from Buchanan (1762) without giving any reference at all to his sources. The sole divergence between them is that the former dropped the footnote that the latter used on page 50. Besides, the discussion on punctuation was located in the orthographical section100 in both grammars. In pursuit of further supportive evidences of plagiarism, I checked the title and preface to Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789). In the preface no acknowledgment of his sources was provided and, what is more, the very title foresees the influence that Buchanan (1762) exerted since Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789) copied heavily Buchanan’s title101: The British Grammar: or, an Essay, in Four Parts, Towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and inditing elegantly. […] (Buchanan, 1762. Emphasis added).

~~100 See section 4.4.3. 101 The copying verbatim of already-published works was a widespread practice among eighteen- century grammarians. See section 2.7. within Chapter 2. 229~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~English Grammar, or, an Essay towards speaking and writing the English language grammatically, and inditing elegantly (Anon. or Hall [ECEG], 1789. Emphasis added).~~

Unlike Anon. or Hall (1799), J.G. (1799) –or Joseph Guy (Navest, 2011: 56; quoted from ECEG)– acknowledged that he relied heavily on Ash’s Grammatical Institutes (1761).102 At first sight, the discussion on punctuation included in J.G. (1799) seems to be an exact copy of Ash (1761), but a careful analysis of the preface to the former shows that it is far from being an instance of plagiarism. On the contrary, we are dealing with an instance of “acknowledged” copying. In the preface to his grammar, J.G. (1799) praises Ash’s work by emphasizing “[t]he elegant and conciseness of the definitions, and the many other excellencies of Dr. Ash’s Introduction […]” (J.G., 1799: iii) and, then, acknowledges that his grammar is a compilation whose object “is different from the one above referred to [i.e. Ash] and which it somewhat resembles” (ibid). Thus, as he himself recognized, his grammar was not original (J.G., 1799: vi). In view of his assertion, we start from the premise that his discussion on punctuation was influenced by Ash (1761) and it actually was. In fact, J.G. added little variation to Ash’s discussion on punctuation, for he only modified the location of the discussion and the inventory of punctuation marks. That is, unlike Ash (1761), who located the punctuation discussion in the general section devoted to ‘grammar’, J.G. (1799) located it in the section entitled ‘orthography’. Moreover, J.G. (1799) added three punctuation marks to Ash’s inventory: the accent, the brace and the ellipsis (i.e. the dash). Therefore, two conclusions can be drawn: Alston’s assertion that the grammar section in J.G. (1799) diverges little from that of Ash (1761) is attested with the discussion on punctuation (Alston, 1965: I, no. 497; quoted from ECEG) and, as Navest (2011: 56-57; quoted from ECEG) argued, J.G. (1799) “enhances our knowledge of the reception of Ash’s grammar in the eighteenth century”. Wilson (1792) acknowledged, in the same vein as J.G. (1799), that his discussion on punctuation was, as the very title of his grammar stated, an improvement of Fisher’s grammar (1753) so “Fisher’s Plan is preserved, And the Work made more perfect By various Amendments” (Wilson, 1792: title page). As expected, Wilson (1792) respected and followed Fisher’s entire discussion on punctuation to

102 As Rodríguez-Gil explains in the ECEG database, J.G.’s subsidiary contents and division of grammar constituted an avowed abridgment to Ash’s grammar (1760) (Entry for Guy, Joseph > Comments). See also Downey (1979: xvii; quoted from ECEG). 230

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

the extent that he only added extra functions to some punctuation marks like the comma. Therefore, Wilson (1792), as well as J.G. (1799), is a perfect example of “acknowledged” copying. On the contrary, Fisher (1753) was plagiarized by Wise (1754) because, as the following excerpts show, the introductory paragraph of the former was slightly modified by the latter: The Stops are used to shew [sic] what Distance of Time must be observed in Reading: They are so absolutely necessary to the better understanding [sic] what we read and write, that, without a strict Attention to them, all Writing would be confused, and liable to many Misconstructions (Fisher, 1753: 37).

The stops are used to shew [sic] what distance of time must be observed in reading: They are so absolutely necessary to the better understanding of what we write and read, that, without a strict attention to them, all writing would be confused, and liable to many misconstructions (Wise, 1754: 26).

Interestingly, in the last part of the sentence, word order was changed by Wise (1754) from: “They are so absolutely necessary to the better understanding what we read and write, […]” (Fisher, 1753: 37; emphasis added) into “[…] they are so absolutely necessary to the better understanding of what we write, and read, […]” (Wise, 1754: 26; emphasis added). In the light of the change in word order, I might argue that in the eyes of Wise (1754) punctuation marks are primarily linked with writing. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Wise (1754) followed Fisher’s discussion to a certain extent given that their inventories of punctuation marks differed. Nonetheless, despite their differences, Wise (1754) copied verbatim Fisher’s introductory paragraph and he acknowledged it nowhere. As a matter of fact, Wise (1754) bears a resemblance to others since Rodríguez-Gil confirms Michael’s assertion that “[m]uch of the grammar is identical with Dyche, 1735” (Michael, 1970: 585; quoted from ECEG > entry for Wise > Comments). However, Rodríguez-Gil argues that Wise (1754) is identical to Dyche and Pardon (1735) “but not to the extent of plagiarism” (ibid) on the grounds that “the parts of speech”, for example, “are described differently” (ibid). As far as punctuation is concerned, unlike Rodríguez-Gil, I argue that Wise (1754) did plagiarize Fisher (1753) to a small extent in view of the introductory paragraph discussed above.

~~231~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Plagiarism was also conspicuous in Newbery (1745)103 since he plagiarized Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711). More specifically, the former copied the passage in which the general function of punctuation was discussed by the latter. That is: “[The use of points or stops] is not only to give a proper Time for Breathing; but to avoid Obscurity, and Confusion of the Sence [sic] in the joining

Words together in a Sentence.” (Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG), 1711: 149; Newbery, 1745: 119). Given that Newbery (1745) acknowledged his sources neither in the preface to his grammar nor in the section entitled ‘Supplement’ (Newbery, 1745: 114-144) where his discussion on punctuation was located, his might be considered an instance of “true plagiarism”. Similarly, Story (1783) plagiarized the general definition of punctuation from Fenning (1771) and altered it to a small extent. That is, according to the latter: Punctuation is the art of distinguishing, by certain marks, the several stops or pauses in a sentence [.] (Fenning, 1771: 155; emphasis added) whereas according to the former:

~~Punctuation, or pointing, is the art of distinguishing in writing, by certain marks, the pauses or stops in a sentence. (Story, 1783: 66; emphasis added).~~

Obviously, though Story (1783) laid emphasis on the use of punctuation marks in writing, both authors stated the same. What is more, Story (1783) merely changed Fenning’s question-and-answer format. Moreover, as Newbery (1745), Story (1783) did not acknowledge his sources so that, in spite of the author’s assertion that the “plan pursued in the […] work is very different from any that hath hitherto been published” (Story, 1783: v), his work was not entirely original because it followed others’ like Fenning (1771). As Newbery (1745), Bicknell (1790: 130) copied verbatim the introductory passage in which the general function of punctuation was stated. Nonetheless, unlike Newbery (1745), Bicknell (1790) acknowledged his sources in the form of a footnote at the beginning of his discussion on punctuation. Thus, he acknowledged that his discussion was based on the ones by “Mason, Sir James Burrow, Buchanan” though he did not specify which passage was taken from whom. As a matter of fact, in the very title of his grammar, Bicknell (1790)

~~103 This grammar was published anonymously but it has been generally attributed to John Newbery (ECEG. Entry for Newbery, John > Author > Biographical Details). 232~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

acknowledged that his work was “a Selection of the most Instructive Rules from all the Principal English Grammars” so his reference to Buchanan (1962), among others, was expectable.104 Therefore, unlike Newbery (1745), Bicknell (1790) constitutes a case of unacknowledged copying. The introductory passage copied from Buchanan’s introductory paragraph was the following: As in Speech or Discourse there are several Motions made by different Parts of the Body, such as with the Head, Hands, Finger, Arms, & c. in order to excite Attention, and transmit a more clear and perfect Idea to the Hearer, of the Meaning and Intention of the Speaker: So Writing being the very Image of Speech, there are several Points or Marks made use of in it, not only to mark the Distance of Time in Reading, and to prevent any Obscurity or Confusion in the Sense; but also, that the various Affections and Emotions of the Soul, described by the Writer, may be more clearly distinguished and comprehended by the Reader (Buchanan, 1762: 49).

As shown in the quotation above, both Buchanan (1762) and Bicknell (1790) deployed the metaphor of the human body to explain the correlation between speech and writing. However, Bicknell (1790) dropped the following sentence of the foregoing paragraph: “but also, that the various Affections and Emotions of the Soul, described by the Writer” (Buchanan, 1762: 49), which implies a rejection of the hermeneutic function of punctuation marks. Broadly speaking, Lowth’s punctuation section (1762) is the most copied105 since the punctuation sections by Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781), Webster (1784), Ash (1785), Devis (1791), Bicknell (1790) and Hodson (1800) are copies of Lowth (1762). Curiously, all of these authors selected and discarded passages from Lowth (1762) but, on the whole, their discussions on punctuation were almost alike. As cases in point, Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781) dropped some of Lowth’s first passages as well as some examples and Ash (1785) dropped Lowth’s discussion on the imperfection of punctuation as well as the account of the historical difference between rhetoricians and grammarians. The following passage is, among others, one of the most copied from Lowth (1762). In fact, five out of the six authors aforementioned copied verbatim such a passage in their grammars: “In order the more clearly to determine the proper application of the

104 On the importance and influence of Buchanan (1962) in the eighteenth century, see section 4.7.4. 105 Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2010c) discusses the extent to which Lowth’s comments were reproduced by later grammarians and writers. According to her and Yáñez-Bouza (2008), in copying Lowth’s rules and strictures, his words were reformulated “in increasingly prescriptive terms, by which they did little justice to his careful and even slightly humorous approach to the subject” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010c: 80). 233

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Point which marks it, we must distinguish between an Imperfect Phrase, a Simple Sentence and a Compounded Sentence.” (Lowth, 1762: 160; Anon. or Doway (ECEG), 1781: 500; Webster, 1784: 133; Ash, 1785: 163; Bicknell, 1790: 122- 123; Devis, 1791: 122). As shown so far, the introductory paragraph in which the general function of punctuation was stated became one of the most copied passages. In the case of Lowth (1762), his general definition of punctuation was copied verbatim by Anon. or Doway (ECEG) (1781) and Ash (1785): “Punctuation is the art of marking in writing the several pauses, or rests, between sentences, and the parts of sentences, according to their proper quantity or proportion, as they are expressed in a just and accurate pronunciation.” (Lowth, 1762: 154; Anon. or Doway (ECEG), 1781: 48; Ash, 1785: 162). In spite of the fact that the six authors copied Lowth (1762) to a smaller or greater extent, a differentiation must be made: two out of the six authors did plagiarize Lowth (1762) whereas the remaining ones did not. As for the set of authors who might be regarded as “plagiarists”, we must consider Anon. or Doway (1781) and Devis (1791) since neither of them acknowledged their sources in their discussions on punctuation. Besides, in their grammar titles no remarks of possible influences from other grammarians were provided. What is more, neither author denominated his work as a compilation. Interestingly, Rodríguez-Gil and Yáñez-Bouza confirm the influence that Lowth (1762) exerted on Anon. or Doway (1781) since the latter is an item that “seems to be an abridgment of Lowth’s (1762) grammar, with simplified explanations and footnotes omitted”.106 With regard to the set of authors who might have committed “unacknowledged copying”, we must consider Webster (1784), Ash (1785), Bicknell (1790) and Hodson (1800). Both Webster (1784) and Bicknell (1790) acknowledged that their punctuation sections were based on Lowth’s (1762). They did so either in the form of a footnote (Bicknell, 1790: 122) or in the form of ‘subtitle’ (Webster, 1784: 132) in which Webster asserted that his discussion was “[a]bridged from Dr. Lowth”. Similarly, Ash (1785) acknowledged in the very title of his grammar that his work was “an Easy Introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar” or, in other words, a simplified version of Lowth (1762). Therefore, when analyzing the passages copied

~~106 (ECEG database > Doway > Comments). 234~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

verbatim, we must start from the premise that Webster (1784), Ash (1785) and Bicknell (1790) already gave notice of the derivative nature of their works. Hodson (1800), like Bicknell (1790), acknowledged in the preface to his work that his grammar was a compilation and, as such, he “avail[ed] […] of the labours of others on each of the subjects; though I have not quoted every author, as that would be attended with more difficulty than might be at first expected, and partake of a preciseness unnecessary in such a work” (Hodson, 1800: iv).107 As he himself recognized, he did not provide the sources of the information he consulted and he subsequently asserted, in the form of self-advertisement, that he “endeavoured to insert all the modern improvements, in each of the subjects, that appeared of any considerable utility” (ibid). All in all, a further distinction must be made: unlike Hodson (1800); Webster (1784), Ash (1785) and Bicknell (1790) referred explicitly to Lowth (1762) in their grammars. Therefore, even though the four grammars were derivative in nature, Hodson (1800) was the only one that committed ‘true’ “unacknowledged copying”. To sum up, the following figure illustrates how the grammars are connected.

~~J. G. (1799) Anon. Or Doway (ECEG) (1781) Ash (1761) Webster (1784)~~

~~Bicknell (1790) Devis (1791) Lowth (1762)~~

~~Hodson (1800) Buchanan (1762)~~

~~Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECCO) (1711) Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789)~~

~~Newbery (1745) Fisher (1753)~~

~~Fenning (1771)~~

~~Wise (1754) Wilson (1792) Story (1783)~~

~~Figure 46. Authors in accordance with the instances of plagiarism encountered~~

~~107 Hodson (1800) dealt with diverse subjects such as English grammar, arithmetic, astronomy, algebra, geography, trigonometry and architecture, among others. 235~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

As for ‘indirect’ influences traced among grammars, I have encountered three different cases. To start with, Webster (1784), as I previously mentioned, acknowledged that his punctuation section was avowedly based on Lowth (1762), so his opening sentence was undoubtedly summarized and slightly modified: Punctuation is the art of marking in writing the several pauses, or rests, between sentences, and the parts of sentences, according to their proper quantity or proportion, as they are expressed in a just and accurate pronunciation. (Lowth, 1762: 154; emphasis added). Punctuation is the art of marking in writing the several pauses or rests between sentences and the parts of sentences (Webster, 1784: 132; emphasis added).

Webster’s opening sentence was subsequently plagiarized by Devis (1791): Pointing, or Punctuation, is the Art of marking in writing the several pauses, or rests, between sentences, and the parts of a sentence. (Devis, 1791: 121); emphasis added).

In view of the conspicuous similarity among the three opening sentences, diachronically speaking, Webster’s sentence is relevant on the basis that influences have been traced among three distinct grammars, that of Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) and Devis (1791). Thus, it might be argued that Devis (1791) was actually plagiarizing Lowth (1762) through Webster (1784). Likewise, I have traced ‘indirect’ influences among three other grammars such as Coote (1788), Murray (1795) and Gardiner (1799). According to Murray (1795): [Punctuation] [i]s the art of dividing a written composition into sentences, or parts of sentences, by points or stops, for the purpose of marking the different pauses which the sense, and accurate pronunciation, require. (Murray, 1795: 159; emphasis added).

Subsequently, Gardiner (1799) copied verbatim Murray’s definition: Punctuation is the art of dividing a written composition into sentences, or parts of sentences, by points or stops, for the purpose of marking the different pauses which the sense, and an accurate pronunciation, require. (Gardiner, 1799: 93-94; emphasis added).

Nonetheless, Murray (1795) did not pioneer such an introductory definition since he slightly modified Coote’s (1788): Punctuation is the art of dividing a discourse into sentences, or members of sentences, by points or stops, for the purpose of marking the different pauses which the sense and pronunciation may require. (Coote, 1788: 260; emphasis added).

~~Therefore, Murray (1795) modified two phrases such as “a discourse” and “members of sentences” into “written composition” and “parts of sentences”,~~

~~236~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

respectively. In this second set of grammars, it must be noted that neither Murray nor Gardiner ought to be regarded as plagiarists since they acknowledged in the introductions to their grammars that their works were compilations “of the most approved English Grammars” (Gardiner, 1799: Introduction; Murray, 1795: Introduction). 108 Thus, despite the failure to name their sources, both authors acknowledged that their grammars were not entirely original and thereby they relied on others like Coote (1788).109 Finally, I have been able to trace ‘indirect’ influences among Ward (1766), Metcalfe (1771) and Meikleham (1795) as well. When discussing the difference between the semicolon and the colon, Metcalfe (1771) used the following statement: The exact Distinction between the Colon and Semicolon, seems to be little regarded:― Nor is it very material. (Metcalfe, 1771: 23; emphasis added).

Subsequently, in 1795, Meikleham copied verbatim Metcalfe’s statement but he added some changes, mainly, in word order: The exact distinction between the semicolon and the colon, seems to be but little regarded, nor is it very material. (Meikleham, 1795: 25; emphasis added).

Unlike the opening sentences discussed so far, this statement was not widespread in grammars so that, initially, I considered that Meikleham (1795) had pirated it directly from Metcalfe (1773). To my surprise, the very same statement was in Ward (1766), that is, in a grammar published almost thirty years earlier than Meikleham (1795), as the following quotation shows: The exact Distinction between the Colon and Semicolon, seems to be little regarded. Nor is it very material. (Ward, 1766: 17; emphasis added).

Given the word order, it might be argued that Meikleham (1795) copied the statement from either Ward (1766) or Metcalfe (1777). Whatever the case, it is clear that Meikleham (1795) did not pioneer it; nor did Metcalfe (1771).110 However, in spite of the fact that neither author named his sources in his discussion on punctuation, both authors acknowledged, to a greater or lesser extent, that their works were based on others. Thus, Metcalfe (1777) stated in the

108 See Chapter 2, section 2.7. 109 Vorlat (1959: 109-110) had already identified Coote (1788) as one of Murray’s sources (quoted from Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1996: 83). 110 It must be noted that piracy or plagiarism might have been found among three grammars, that of Anon. (1769), Metcalfe (1771) and Murray (1771). See ECEG (entry for Metcalfe > Comments). 237

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

title page that his Rudiments were “adapted to the capacities of children: after the plan of Mr Ruddiman’s Latin Rudiments.” (Emphasis added) and Meikleham considered “it as his duty to acknowledge, that he has adopted from others, whatever he found consistent with his plan” (Meikleham, 1795: 8; emphasis added).

5.3.1. Concluding remarks All in all, in view of the foregoing instances, plagiarism was usual. In only one case, i.e. Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789), the whole punctuation section was conspicuously plagiarized from other grammars, i.e. from Buchanan (1762); in two other cases, i.e. J.G. (1799) and Wilson (1792), the authors acknowledged that the entire grammar and, thus, the discussion on punctuation, was based on others, i.e. on Ash (1761) and Fisher (1753), respectively. Therefore, a distinction has been made between those authors who plagiarized and those who committed “unacknowledged copying”. Moreover, in broad terms, not only were punctuation sections plagiarized, but also modified. In the majority of grammar editions analyzed, the general definition of punctuation was copied and subsequently altered to a small extent. Furthermore, as stated, Lowth became the most plagiarized author given that many of his assertions were diffused in different grammars. In my attempt to find further supportive evidences of plagiarism, I distinguished between plagiarists and those who committed “unacknowledged copying” on the basis that authors justified the nature of their works in both the title page and preface to their works. As cases in point, consider the difference between Wise (1754), who plagiarized Fisher (1753), and Bicknell (1790) who acknowledged the influence of Buchanan (1762) in his work. As discussed throughout this section, the modification of opening sentences has proven useful to trace influences among authors. In fact, three distinct sets of three authors each have been identified: - (i) Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) and Devis (1791) - (ii) Coote (1788), Murray (1795) and Gardiner (1799) - (iii) Ward (1766), Metcalfe (1771) and Meikleham (1795) As a result, each of these sets might be considered as ‘influence triangles’.

~~238~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~6. Conclusions~~

6.1. Overview During the eighteenth century the codification of the English language was at its peak and it influenced the preference for plain and functional English. The standardization process entailed the growing importance of the written channel for it became the medium through which the standard variety of the English language was enforced. In the eighteenth-century English educational system, the different schools or institutions had differing orientations: charity schools, on the one hand, were job-oriented and they were attended by the poorer; on the other, traditional grammar schools, which were career-oriented, were attended by children from the middle and upper classes who were mainly instructed in classical languages. Thanks to the revolutionary theory of ‘associationism’ whereby dissenters like Priestley stated that intellectual development is attainable through education, education was regarded, for the first time, as the crucial means to change man’s nature. Another far-reaching educational policy fostered by dissenters was the prompting of a scientific-oriented curriculum which was already offered in dissenting and private academies. Unlike the job-oriented and the career-oriented curricula, the scientific one covered areas like geography, history, mathematics and English. The growing adherence to the scientific curriculum paved the way for a ‘mother-tongue’ or, say, modern education in which English gradually became a subject in the school curricula. In spite of the fact that English was originally explained in accordance with Latin grammatical categories, grammar writers became aware of the differences existent between both languages and, consequently, English was explained increasingly in syntactical terms unlike Latin which was explained in morphological ones. Thus, a reforming or vernacular movement, rooted in Gill (1619), came into being: many grammar writers started to use vernacular terminology and the four-fold system of grammatical categories. Nonetheless, the influence of Latin did not entirely disappear given that ‘teaching’ grammars fluctuated from conservative (like Lowth, 1762) to radical (like Fisher, 1753). Though grammar writers did not share an enterprise, as discussed in Chapter 2, they formed a discourse community that generated written discourse practices

~~239~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

which showed common goals, interests and a certain homogenization as far as terminology and examples are concerned, up to the point that plagiarism was widespread. As a result, public accusations of plagiarism were usual (cf. Bellum Grammaticale, 1712). That is, though eighteenth-century ‘teaching’ grammars varied in size, contents and structure depending on the target audience and the objectives (Sundby et al. 1991: 4-5), four types of plagiarism have been encountered among them, that is, instances of ‘true’ plagiarism, ‘unacknowledged copying’, ‘customary appropriation’ and ‘interlingual plagiarism’. Out of the four types, those of ‘unacknowledged copying’ and ‘customary appropriation’ were typical. As Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1996: 83) argued, if we analyze the author’s motives in copying others, we can make a distinction between those who, motivated by “a certain amount of wilful deception”, copied deliberately others and those who, on the contrary, acted in “good faith” and acknowledged that their works were compilations. Therefore, in view of the authors’ motives aforementioned, the four types of plagiarism are further reducible to two: ‘true plagiarism’ and ‘unacknowledged copying’. The growth of interest in grammars resulted from the standardization of the prestigious variety of the English language and the demand for guidance in the use of norms by social climbers. The rising middle-class aimed at attaining the standard variety owing to the fact that such variety was prestigious although it resulted from arbitrary norms which differed from actual usage (Fitzmaurice, 1998: 323; Vorlat, 2007: 515; Hickey, 2010: 3). In response to the demands of such a class, a market proliferated in which letter-writing manuals, usage guides, grammars and the like were offered as prescriptive guides to ‘correct’ usage. Though grammars differed slightly in their approaches to the description of the English language, they showed differences in two notions, those of ‘correctness’ and ‘politeness’. With regard to the former, unlike the grammars published during the second half of the eighteenth century, the ones published during the first half did not aim at evaluating correct and incorrect usages so judgments were not provided. In other words, proscriptive comments appeared in grammars published in the second half of the eighteenth century because grammar writers resorted to the ‘best’ as well as ‘faulty’ authors due to pedagogical reasons. In this way, social climbers were guided in their pursuit of ‘correct’ English. With regard to ‘politeness’, grammars published in the first half of the eighteenth century

~~240~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

approached it from a pragmatic viewpoint, for they considered that ‘polite’ society can be attained by people from any social rank if they acquire its social markers. Contrastingly, grammars published in the second half of the eighteenth century judged correct and incorrect style so, instead of instructing the readership, they stratified society. Being a component of grammar, the punctuation discussion mirrored the pursuit of consensus that was typical of the standardization process since punctuation underwent changes in its general function as well as in its inventory of marks. As for its general function, punctuation has been linked with both speech and writing in accordance with the rhetorical and grammatical punctuation traditions respectively. Throughout the time spans discussed in Chapter 3 we have seen the ways in which punctuation conventions changed owing to the realignment of speech and writing. That is, the rhetorical and grammatical punctuation traditions assigned a different function to the written channel since it was used either to record speech or to keep durable records. In the former, the written channel was dependent on the spoken whereas in the latter it was an independent channel. In the Old and Middle English periods, there was no fully-established punctuation system and, what is more, it varied according to text type, degree of formality and the text’s ultimate function to such an extent that the higher the degree of the text’s formality, the higher the frequency of punctuation marks displayed. During the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the standardization of orthography and punctuation in the English language was reinforced, above all, by the efforts made by printers (Salmon, 2000: 53). Printers gave primacy to the non- rhetorical function of punctuation because they were concerned with the clarification of the written word. Furthermore, printers had the last say in the choice of punctuation marks when confronted with authorial punctuation that did not fulfil the principle of accessibility. That is, printers felt compelled to change authorial punctuation when it was not intelligible for readers and, consequently, they were confronted, in turn, with the principle of authenticity given that the original punctuation was not respected. Thus, some scholars assert the existence of the so-called ‘typographical’ punctuation tradition, which was in turn influenced by the ‘hermeneutic’ one, which highlighted exegesis, given that printers’ conventions became the norm in later texts. In the EModE period and, mainly, in the LModE one, interest in punctuation rose (cf. the five treatises on

~~241~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

punctuation published during the eighteenth century) and, although rhetorical and grammatical traditions stood side by side, grammar writers gave preference to the latter over the former. That is the reason why punctuation is no longer linked with musical notation nor pauses in reading but with the marking of sense units and syntactical relations, as the present-day definitions of punctuation provided by the OED and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica have shown. Therefore, as discussed so far, an evolution in the general function of punctuation from Old to Present-day English can be traced. With regard to the inventory of punctuation marks, changes were even more conspicuous in view of the difference in number between the first ancient set of three marks and the LModE set implemented by printers. The first system of punctuation was devised by Aristophanes of Byzantium (257?-180? B.C.) and it comprised only the comma, colon and periodus. Later on, such a system was modified so the three marks were now labelled as positurae. During the Old English period only three punctuation marks have been encountered, that is, the punctus (·), punctus elevatus ( ) and the punctus versus (;), and whose functions were interchangeable given the lack of standardization. During the Middle English period, the set of punctuation marks increased up to the point that some marks were found solely in specialized texts. According to Parkes (1993: 42-43), the set of five punctuation marks comprised the litterae notabiliores, punctus (.), punctus interrogativus ( ), punctus elevatus ( ) and the virgule suspensiva ( / ), though the latter was variable since it was doubled and annexed to the period, either thus (./) or (.//) (//.). As for the punctuation marks that appeared solely in specialized texts, we must mention the simplex ductus or 7-shaped positura ( ) and the paragraphus variant (§), though the latter adopted other forms like (¶). Moreover, albeit uncommon, instances of the colon (:) (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 1998b; Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005), the dash (―) (Jenkinson, 1926) and double hyphen (=) (Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005) were encountered. Following the trend of the former period, EModE inventory of punctuation marks was on the increase: during the first half of the sixteenth century the apostrophe, the hyphen, square brackets, the dieresis, the exclamation mark and the parenthesis were introduced; from the end of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century, printers devised the last punctuation marks which had

~~242~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

graphical functions such as quotation marks, the caret (^), braces ({}), the asterisk (*), the obelisk (†) and the pointing finger (☞) (Sherman, 2005: 13). All of these marks were laid down to clarify the text to the reader (Salmon, 2000: 41). Likewise, the shapes and functions ascribed to some punctuation marks were redefined: the virgule ( / ) and the punctus interrogativus ( ) were redefined to the modern comma (,) and interrogation mark (?), respectively. However, the nomenclature was not completely fixed (cf. Salmon, 2000: 38). Finally, during the LModE period, efforts were made to standardize the usages of the punctuation marks that presented more uncertainty like the apostrophe, the quotation marks, the colon and the dash. In fact, the latter was peculiar because of the hermeneutic function that some writers like Sarah Fielding ascribed to it.

6.2. Concluding remarks My analysis of 290 editions of 106 English grammars written by 99 authors from the period has shed light on the status and evolution of punctuation during the eighteenth century. The importance of punctuation in the present corpus is noticeable since it was included in the vast majority of grammars studied, that is, punctuation was discussed in 238 editions of 80 grammars written by 75 authors. In spite of the fact that punctuation was treated as an imperfect doctrine that needs to be fixed, most authors emphasized the usefulness of punctuation in the avoidance of misunderstandings. Punctuation was referred to as either an art or a necessary doctrine to write and read well. In fact, consensus was almost completely attained as far as approach is concerned since punctuation was, on the whole, aimed at conveying the correct sense of the text. In a very high number of editions, i.e. in 229 editions of 74 grammars, the combination of rhetorical and grammatical traditions was supported and, among them, the clarification of the sense of the text was stressed in 94 editions. The rhetorical explanations given encompassed the theory of cadence, breathing and intonation; the grammatical or syntactical ones encompassed the distinction of sentences and the parts of sentences. Therefore, in the light of the combination of approaches advocated by eighteenth-century authors, punctuation has to do with both speech and writing. Accordingly, the discussion on punctuation was located in book sections that were devoted to syntax, orthography and speech. However, given that most authors included a wide array of marks whose functions were explained mainly in

~~243~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

syntactical and orthographical terms, the discussion on punctuation was located mainly in sections that strengthened the written nature of punctuation. Thus, in the 49% of editions punctuation was located in ‘Syntax’ and ‘Orthography’ whereas in the 10%, in rhetorical and prosodic sections. In my view, authors tried to fix the function and the set of punctuation marks and, consequently, the punctuation systems that authors outlined have been useful to classify grammars. As the publication of grammars increased from the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, the number of editions that dealt with punctuation was also on the increase. It must be noted that punctuation systems were developed across time on the basis that the first system, which was created by Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) (1711), was extended and modified in many subsequent grammars. Far from being scarce, the punctuation systems that I have outlined here showed that authors advocated multifunctional systems of punctuation. On the whole, authors preferred to classify punctuation marks into two groups, hence the supremacy of Branch 2. In fact, the second branch was the only one that was supported on a regular basis in terms of sheer numbers and in terms of a continuous presence throughout the period since it appeared every decade in grammars. Eight out of 71 types of punctuation systems were supported by more than one author, especially Lowth’s system (1762) which was the most supported punctuation system during the eighteenth century. Broadly speaking, authors agreed on both the functions and the symbols that stand for the twenty-nine punctuation marks retrieved from the present corpus in spite of the fact that the function of some punctuation marks, not least the semicolon, was subject to discussion. With regard to the generic terminology deployed by authors, the etymology of the terms has proven to be an indicator of the author’s covert or overt adherence to either a classical or a reforming movement in his discussion on punctuation. Among the generic terms deployed, eighteenth-century authors preferred the Germanic-rooted term marks when referring to the ‘secondary’ set of punctuation marks whereas the Latinate and Germanic terms points and stops, respectively, were used almost interchangeably when referring to the ‘primary’ set of punctuation marks. In the case of the so-called points or stops, these have different purposes since they are deployed in both writing and reading. So, as Rodríguez-Álvarez (2010) wittily asserted, authors “consider points marks of the writer and for the reader” (Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 46). By contrast,

~~244~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

marks have a single function either in writing or in reading. As a result, the combination of rhetorical, semantic and syntactic criteria was mostly encountered in the functions of points/stops, i.e. the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the period, the interrogation mark, the exclamation mark and the parenthesis, whereas the wide array of marks was accounted for in syntactical and orthographical terms. Therefore, as shown so far, punctuation marks have a double function. The vast majority of authors preferred an eclectic punctuation system given that they mixed Latin and Germanic generic terms. It is also interesting to note that the two most supported authors, i.e. Lowth (1762) and Fisher (1753), were consistent in their stances towards a classical and vernacular movement respectively in view of the Latinate and Germanic etymologies of the terms they chose. Furthermore, a further comparison with Michael’s (1970) survey of the systems of parts of speech has shown that both authors were equally consistent in the stances aforementioned. However, in specific cases, not least Bettesworth (1778) and Wilson (1792), authors were not completely consistent. We have also drawn the conclusion that the systems of parts of speech and the sets of punctuation marks alike were “mutually exclusive”, hence the variability in their arrangement. The systems of punctuation as well as the systems of parts of speech were, merely, variable replicas of the first devised system and, in the light of the high number of punctuation systems encountered in the present corpus, we might argue that the authors’ discontent with the systems propounded was greater. The punctuation systems that authors shared as well as instances of acknowledged and unacknowledged use of secondary sources have shown influences among authors over time. In line with the combination of grammatical and rhetorical approaches to punctuation, authors mainly consulted contemporary grammatical and rhetorical works like dictionaries, treatises on elocution and on punctuation although, on the whole, the reference to the latter was scant given that only Burrow (1772) and Robertson (1785) were mentioned. Among the works quoted, Lowth’s grammar (1762) became one of the most cited. Therefore, the works and authors quoted could have been regarded as the most approved ones. Moreover, many authors illustrated their theories by means of periodicals like The Spectator, essays, poems, plays and religious works like The Bible on the grounds that the latter contains all of the punctuation marks (Pape, 1790). Interestingly, some passages were quoted by more than one author, for example, from The Spectator

~~245~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

No. 73 and from Milton (1667), among others, so that they constitute instances of “customary appropriation”. Not only acknowledged copying but also unacknowledged copying has been encountered. Instances of unacknowledged copying were more numerous than those of ‘true’ plagiarism since many authors acknowledged the derivative nature of their works in the preface and the title of their grammars. In fact, instances of ‘true’ plagiarism were scant since only one author, i.e. Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789), plagiarized the entire punctuation section from others like Buchanan (1762). Influences were also noticeable in the general definition of punctuation for many authors copied it and subsequently modified it to a small extent. As a result, we have traced an “influence triangle” between, for instance, Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) and Devis (1790). All in all, among the pirated authors, Lowth (1762) became the most copied grammar since many of his assertions were diffused in different grammars. All things considered, we might conclude that a general consensus was attained as far as punctuation is concerned despite the long inventory of systems of punctuation encountered in the present corpus. Within the framework of the comprehensive analysis of the 238 grammar editions, a further analysis of the discussion on punctuation in other eighteenth-century text types would become profitable in order to test how far the punctuation rules laid down in grammars influenced others.

~~246~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~7. Appendices~~

~~247~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~APPENDIX A. Classification of punctuation systems~~

~~In the following tables the 238 editions studied are classified according to the authorial number of punctuation marks and their grouping.~~

~~248~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~BRANCH 1. Punctuation marks gathered in 1 group:~~

~~Type 1: 4 (grammatical points, Jones 1771); points (Murray 1797b); stops (Webster 1785; Murray 1797b) designed to express the pauses , ; : .~~

~~comma semicolon colon period~~

~~Jones 1771; Webster 1785; Murray 1797b~~

Type 2: 6 points (Anon. 1770-1771; Burr 1797) or stops (Anon. 1770-1771); marks (McGowan 1773); pauses (Burr 1797) in reading , ; : . ? ! comma semicolon colon period note of note of admiration interrogation (Anon. 1770-1771; semmicolon full stop (Anon. Burr 1797) (Anon. 1770- 1770-1771) interrogation 1771) (McGowan 1773) note of exclamation (Burr 1797)

~~admiration (McGowan 1773) Anonymous 1770-1771; McGowan 1773; Burr 1797~~

~~Type 3: 7 stops , ; : . ? () ’~~

~~comma semicolon colon period interrogation parenthesis apostrophe~~

~~Anonymous 1788a~~

~~Type 4: 8 most usual points, marks and stops in writing , ; : . ? ! () ˆ comma semicolon colon period or note of note of parenthesis caret full stop interrogation admiration~~

~~Barker 1733~~

Type 5: 17 [no term is given] , ; : . ? ! () [] comma semicolon colon period note of note of parenthesis crotchets interrogation admiration or exclamation * † ‡ ǁ ¨ *** § “” ☞ ˆ ˘ asterisk diaeresis several section quotation index caret breve asterisks obelisks

~~lines - hyphen Hornsey 1793~~

~~249~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 6: 20 stops, marks or points used in writing and reading , ; : . ? comma semicolon colon period or full note of interrogation stop ! () ’ ^ “(”) note of parenthesis apostrophe caret quotation admiration {} ― § [] ☞ braces ellipsis section brackets or index or hand crotchets - ¶ ¨ * † hyphen paragraph diaresis or asterism, obelisk or dagger dialysis asterisk or star Corbet 1784, 1785

Type 7: 21 [no term is given] , ; : . ? comma semicolon colon period interrogation ! () ’ ^ “ admiration parenthesis apostrophe caret quotation - ¶ ¨ * † hyphen paragraph diaeresis asterism obelisk ˉ ˘ § ´ ☞ long breve section accent index ˜ circumflex Green 1779

Type 8: 29 points, accents, references &c. , ; : . ? ! comma semicolon colon full point interrogation admiration () ’ ^ “ - ¶ parenthesis apostrophe caret turned division paragraph commas ¨ * † ˉ ˘ § diaeresis star obelisk long short section ´ ☞ ˆ ― } ‡ acute index circumflex dash brace anonymous ǁ ` [] and and parallels grave crotchets roman italic

~~Mennye 1785~~

~~250~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~BRANCH 2. Punctuation marks gathered in 2 groups:~~

~~a) 4 + ----~~

Type 1: 4 points or distinctions that divide a discourse into periods and express the pauses to be made in reading + 2 points sufficiently explained by their names , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! Group 2 interrogation point exclamation point Stapleton 1797

Type 2: 4 points, or marks (Ward 1766); stops (Anon. 1788b); pauses (Bingham 1790) that express the pauses in discourse + 3 other points which denote a different modulation of the voice in correspondence with the sense , ; : .

~~comma semicolon colon period Group 1 full stop (Ward 1766; Meikleham 1781; Anon. 1788b) ? ! () ([])~~

~~interrogation point exclamation point parenthesis~~

interrogation (Burn 1766) admiration (Burn bracket (Burn 1766; Meikleham 1766) mark of interrogation 1781) (Ward 1766) Group 2 mark of exclamation interrogation (Meikleham (Ward 1766) 1781) point of admiration point of interrogation (Anon. 1788b) (Anon. 1788b) note of admiration note of interrogation (Bingham 1790) (Bingham 1790) Lowth 1762, 1763, 1763, 1764, 1764, 1765, 1765, 1769, 1769, 1771, 1772, 1774, 1775, 1775, 1775, 1778, 1778, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1783, 1785, 1786, 1786, 1790, 1791, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1795, 1799, 1799; Burn 1766; Ward 1766, 1767; Anonymous or Doway (ECEG) 1781; Meikleham 1781; Webster 1784, 1787, 1787?, 1790, 1792, 1792, 1794, 1796, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1800; Anonymous 1788b; Bingham 1790, 1794, 1796, 1799

~~Type 3.a: 4 stops + 4 other signs , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () - Group 2 (sign of) interrogation (sign of) parenthesis hyphen exclamation Brittain 1788, 1790~~

~~251~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 3.b: 4 points + 4 [no term is given] , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon full stop or period ? ! () ’ Group 2 interrogation point interjection or parenthesis apostrophe exclamation point Anonymous 1791

Type 3.c: 4 points used in writing to distinguish the pauses or stops in a sentence + 4 marks which denote a different modulation of the voice , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () ― Group 2 interrogation point exclamation point parenthesis pause Rhodes 1795

~~Type 4: 4 stops used in common sentences + 7 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () []~~

~~note of exclamation parenthesis brackets Group 2 interrogation point “” - } inverted commas hyphen brace Bullen 1797~~

~~Type 5.a: 4 points or stops + 10 other characters made use of in writing , ; : .~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period~~

~~full stop (Francis 1790) ? ! () ‘’ “”~~

~~note of interrogation note of parenthesis quotation exclamation~~

note of admiration (Francis 1790) - ˆ ’ ¶ Group 2 hyphen caret apostrophe paragraph ¨ * † ‡ ǁ § (Ash 1777) ☞ (1790) diaeresis asterism/ asterisk obelisk/dagger (Ash 1777) double dagger (Ash 1777) parallel lines/ parallel (Ash 1777) section index (Francis 1790) Ash 1761, 1771, 1772, 1775, 1777, 1777, 1780, 1781, 1783, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1788, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1798, 1799; Francis 1790

~~252~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 5.b: 4 marks, points or stops that denote the four members of a complete period + 10 other notes or characters in the orthography of most languages , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period, full stop or full point

~~? ! () and [] “ -~~

~~note of note of parenthesis quotation hyphen interrogation admiration and Group 2 crotchet `or ´ (Martin ‘ ¶ § ☞ * † 1766) accent apostrophe paragraph index asterism~~

~~section obelisk Martin 1754, 1757, 1766~~

~~Type 5.c: 4 points or stops that mark the different pauses + 10 [no term is given] , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () “” -~~

~~note of note of exclamation parenthesis quotation hyphen interrogation Group 2 ˆ ’ ― * † ǁ } caret apostrophe dash asterisk brace~~

~~obelisk~~

~~parallels Gardiner 1799~~

~~Type 6.a: 4 stops + 12 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon point, period or full stop ? ! () “ - ’~~

~~[no term] admiration parenthesis [no term] hyphen apostrophe Group 2 ^ ¶ § † * ☞ caret paragraph section dagger or spit asterism index Corbet 1743~~

~~253~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 6.b: 4 points that belong to a complete period + 12 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () “” ‘’~~

~~note of note of admiration parenthesis quotation interrogation ˆ ¶ and § * † ǁ ‡ ☞~~

~~caret paragraph and asterism or asterisk index~~

~~section~~

~~obelisk~~

~~notes~~

~~notes Group 2 - ’ ´ ` ″ ˉ ˘ ¨ hyphen apostrophe accute accent diaeresis or dialysis grave accent~~

~~double accent~~

~~long accent~~

~~short accent Ward 1777~~

Type 7.a: 4 points, stops or pauses in sentences that give a proper time for breathing and avoid obscurity and confusion of the sense + 13 [no term is given] , ; : . Group 1 comma semi-colon or colon full stop or half colon point ? ! () ‘ “

~~[no term] point of admiration parenthesis [no term]~~

~~^ ¶ § * Group 2 [no term] [no term] [no term] asterism - ’ ǂ ☞ [no term] apostrophe obelisk [no term] ― [no term] Anonymous or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) 1711~~

~~254~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 7.b: 4 points or stops + 13 other characters made use of in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () ‘’ “”~~

~~note of interrogation note of admiration parenthesis quotation~~

~~Group 2 ˆ ¶ * † ‡ § ´ caret paragraph asterisk accent~~

~~obelisk~~

~~&c. - ’ ¨ ― hyphen apostrophe diaeresis ellipses~~

~~} brace J.G. 1799~~

~~Type 8: 4 stops + 16 marks in reading , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period~~

~~? ! () and [] “~~

~~interrogation admiration parenthesis quotation~~

~~- ’ ˆ ¶ hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph Group 2 § * † ☞ section asterism obelisk index~~

~~´ ¨ ˘ ˆ accent diaeresis breve circumflex Stirling 1735, 1740~~

Type 9.a: 4 points, pauses or stops that give a proper time for breathing and avoid obscurity and confusion of the sense + 17 [no term is given] , ; : . Group 1 comma semi or half colon colon period, full-stop or full-point ? ! () “

(no term) point of parenthesis quotation admiration parenthasis (Steele 1782) ˆ § * † caret section or division asterism obelisk Group 2 ¨ ˘ ˆ - dialysis breve circumflex hyphen connexion ’ ` ☞ [] apostrophe accent index parathesis or brackets - [no term] Anonymous or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) 1712, 1712, 1712, 1714, 1721, 1735?, 1746, 1759; Steele 1782

~~255~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 9.b: 4 points or marks that divide a discourse into sentences to show the pauses in reading + 17 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () “~~

~~interrogation admiration parenthesis quotation ˆ ¶ ǁ or § (Shaw * 1785) caret paragraph section asterisk or asterism~~

~~Group 2 ☞ ¨ ― [] index diaeresis or ellipsis parathesis, crotchets dialysis or brackets - ’ † ǁ hyphen apostrophe obelisk parallels } braces Shaw 1778, 1785, 1788~~

~~Type 10: 4 stops + 19 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () “”~~

note of note of parenthesis inverted commas interrogation exclamation ^ ¶ § * Group 2 caret paragraph section asterism ☞ ` ¨ ˘ index accent diaeresis breve - ’ † ǁ hyphen apostrophe obelisk parallels ― [] } dash or break brackets or brace crotchets Fogg 1792-1796

~~b) 5 + ----~~

~~Type 1.a: 5 most usual stops or pauses in a sentence + 12 other points or marks of distinction used in writing , ; : . ? Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop interrogation ! () - ˆ ¶~~

(note of) parenthesis hyphen caret paragraph admiration or exclamation Group 2 * † ǁ ǁǁ ☞ - - - [] asterism obelisk or dagger index or ellipsis or brackets or hand omission crotchets parallel lines § ¡ section irony Loughton 1734, 1735, 1744

~~256~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 1.b: 5 most usual stops or pauses in a sentence + 12 other points or marks of distinction used in writing , ; : . ? Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop interrogation ! () “ - ˆ~~

~~(note of) parenthesis quotation hyphen caret admiration or exclamation § * † ǁ or ☞ ― []~~

~~Group 2 ǁǁ section asterism index or ellipsis or brackets or hand omission crotchets obelisk or dagger~~

~~parallel lines ¶ ¡ paragraph irony Loughton 1749~~

~~c) 6 + ----~~

~~Type 1: 6 points or pauses + 9 (others) that are not so common , ; : Group 1 comma semicolon colon . ? ! period interrogation admiration or exclamation () “ -~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen ¶ § * † ǁ paragraph [no term] asterisk or asterism Group 2 obelisk~~

~~parallel lines ’ ^ ☞ apostrophe caret index Hodgson 1770~~

~~Type 2: 6 points used in writing + 10 marks , ; :~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon . ? ! period interrogation exclamation () “” - ’ ˆ~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret * † ǁ ☞ ´ ¨ [] Group 2 asterism index accent dieresis crotchets~~

~~obelisk~~

~~parallels Miller 1795~~

~~257~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 3: 6 principal stops or pauses + 11 [no term is given] , ; :~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon . ? ! period or full stop note of interrogation note of admiration () “ -~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen § * † ǁ section or division asterism parallels~~

~~Group 2 obelisk or dagger ’ ^ ¶ apostrophe caret paragraph ☞ ´ index or hand accent Ireland 1784~~

~~Type 4: 6 stops or points used in grammar + 12 marks or notes to be met with in reading , ; : . ? !~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period note of note of interrogation admiration~~

~~interrogation exclamation () “ - ’ ˆ ¶~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph circumflex § * † ǁ ☞ ´ ¨ ˘ Group 2 section asterism index accent diaresis breve~~

~~obelisk~~

~~parallels Chown 1788~~

~~Type 5.a: 6 stops or pauses used to show what distance of time must be observed between words in reading + 14 other marks or characters in writing and printing , ; : . ? ! (¡)~~

~~comma semicolon colon period interrogation admiration or full stop Group note of note of 1 interrogation exclamation or admiration~~

~~[no term] () “” - ’ ˆ~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret ¶ § * † ǁ ǁ ☞~~

~~paragraph section asterism obelisk index Group~~

~~2 parallel lines ´ ˘ ˆ or ˉ [] accent breve circumflex crotchets or brackets Anonymous 1746, 1760~~

~~258~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 5.b: 6 points or stops + 14 characters made use of in writing , ; :~~

~~comma semicolon colon Group 1 . ? ! period or full note of note of stop interrogation exclamation or admiration () ‘’ “” - ’ ˆ~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret circumflex ¶ § * † ‡ ǁ ☞ ´~~

~~paragraph section asterisk index or hand accent~~

~~dagger or obelisk~~

~~Group 2 double dagger~~

~~parallel lines ¨ --- or ― [] } diaeresis or ellipsis brackets or brace dialysis crotchets Ash 1796~~

Type 6: 6 stops that are used to mark the pauses in reading, and sense in writing + 17 marks and characters , ; : . ? ! Group 1 comma semicolon colon period note of note of interrogation admiration () “(”) - ’ ^ ¶

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph~~

~~Group 2 § * † ☞ ´ ¨ section asterism obelisk index accent diaeresis~~

~~˘ ˆ - - - [] {} breve circumflex ellipses crotchets or braces brackets Smetham 1774~~

~~259~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 7: 6 stops used as intervals in writing (Bettesworth 1778) and reading + 18 marks , ; :~~

~~comma semicolon colon~~

. ? ! Group 1 period note of interrogation note of admiration or full stop (Fisher 1753; interrogation exclamation (Fisher Bettesworth 1778; Wilson (Fisher 1753; 1753; Carter 1773; 1792) Bettesworth 1778; Wilson 1792) Wilson 1792) admiration () “ ”

~~parenthesis quotation end of a/the quotation~~

~~- ’ ˆ hyphen apostrophe caret~~

~~¶ § * paragraph section asterism~~

~~division (Fisher 1753; Wilson 1792)~~

~~† ‡ ǁ ☞ ´ obelisk (Fisher 1753; Carter index or fore finger accent 1773; Wilson 1792) pointing~~

~~dagger (Carter 1773)~~

~~oblisk (Bettesworth 1778)~~

~~Group 2 double obelisks (Bettesworth 1778)~~

~~double obelisk (Fisher 1753; Wilson 1792)~~

~~parallel-lines (Bettesworth 1778)~~

~~parallel lines (Fisher 1753; Wilson 1792) ¨ ˘ ˆ diresis (Carter 1773) breve circumflex~~

~~dialysis (Fisher 1753; Carter 1773; Wilson 1792)~~

dieresis (Fisher 1753; Bettesworth 1778; Wilson 1792) ― [] } ellipsis crotchets or brackets brace (Fisher 1753; Carter omission (Fisher 1753; 1773; Wilson 1792) Wilson 1792) Fisher 1753, 1754, 1762, 1763, 1767, 1768, 1771, 1779, 1780?, 1785, 1788, 1789, 1789, 1791, 1794, 1795, 1795, 1800; Carter 1773; Bettesworth 1778; Wilson J. 1792, 1797

~~260~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~d) 7 + ----~~

~~Type 1: 7 [no term is given] used in pointing sentences + 10 other marks that have relation to them, commonly used in writing and printing , ; : .~~

~~Group 1 comma semi-colon colon period or full stop ? ! ― point of point of break interrogation admiration () “” - ’ ˆ~~

~~parenthesis sign of a hyphen apostrophe caret quotation ¶ § * ǁ † ‡ [] {}~~

~~Group 2 ☞ sign of a sign of a section asterisk brackets braces paragraph parallel~~

~~obelisk~~

~~double obelisk~~

~~index Johnston 1772~~

~~Type 2: 7 points that point out certain pauses or rests to be made + 12 other marks made use of in books and writing, as references, or to point out something remarkable or defective , ; : .~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () interrogation admiration parenthesis “ - ’ ˆ~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret ¶ § * ǁ † ☞~~

~~paragraph section asterism or asterisk index or hand Group 2~~

~~parallel lines~~

~~obelisk or dagger ¨ ˘ ― [] diaeresis breve ellipsis crochets or brackets Wright 1794~~

~~261~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~e) 8 + ----~~

~~Type 1: 8 stops or marks of rest and distinction + 6 notes or marks of pronunciation , ; : .~~

~~comma semi-colon colon period Group 1 half-colon ? ! () [] point of point of parenthesis parathesis interrogation admiration [no symbol] ʼ and ʽ ˘ and ˉ ˋ ʼ -~~

~~spirit short time short or apostrophus hyphen dialysis Group 2 and treble long time accent; grave accent; circumflex or mean accent Maittaire 1712~~

~~Type 2: 8 stops used as intervals in reading + 12 marks used in writing , ; : .~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () ― interrogation exclamation or parenthesis dash admiration “(”) - ˆ ¶~~

~~quotation hyphen caret paragraph Group 2 § * † ´ section asterism obelisk accent ˘ ― [] } breve elipsis crotchets brace Pape 1790~~

~~262~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~f) 10 + ----~~

~~Type 1: 10 points or pauses used in writing + 13 [no term is given] used in writing , ; : . ?~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period interrogation ! () “ ” ’ [] exclamation parenthesis quotation apostrophe brackets - ˆ ¶ §~~

~~hyphen caret paragraph section * † ǁ ☞ ´~~

~~asterism obelisk index accent~~

~~Group 2 parallels ¨ ˘ ˆ ― diaeresis breve circumflex ellipsis ˉ long Turner 1739~~

~~g) 17 + ----~~

~~Type 1: 17 points or pauses used in writing + 6 [no term is given] used in writing , ; : . ? !~~

comma semicolon colon period interrogation exclamation Group 1 () “ ” - ’ ˆ * parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret asterism ´ ¨ ˘ [] ˉ accent diaeresis breve brackets long ¶ § † ǁ ☞ ˆ ―

~~Group 2 paragraph section obelisk index circumflex ellipsis~~

~~parallels Turner 1741~~

~~263~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~BRANCH 3. Punctuation marks gathered in 3 groups~~

~~a) 4 + 2 + ----~~

Type 1: 4 points employed in marking the several pauses + 2 other points or marks which are frequently used in writing + 2 marks , “” ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop [no term] ? ! Group 2 note of interrogation note of admiration () [] Group 3 parenthesis brackets Coote 1788

~~Type 2: 4 points or stops used in reading + 2 [no term is given] + 12 marks or notes to be met with in reading , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? !~~

~~Group 2 interrogation [no term admiration, exclamation really] or wonder [no term really] () “ - ’~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe ˆ ¶ § * † ǁ~~

~~caret paragraph section asterism Group 3~~

~~obelisk~~

~~parallels ☞ ´ ¨ ˘ index accent diaresis breve Wilson 1769~~

~~264~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 3: 4 points or stops considered as intervals in reading + 2 other points + 16 notes or marks to be met with in reading , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full point ? !~~

~~Group 2 erotesis or point of ecphonesis or point of interrogation exclamation, admiration or wonder () “ - ’~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe ^ ¶ § * caret paragraph section asterism~~

~~Group 3 † ǁ ☞ ´ obelisk parallels index accent ¨ ˘ [] } diaresis breve crotchets brace Bicknell 1790~~

~~b) 4 + 3 + ----~~

Type 1: 4 points that mark in writing the several pauses or rests between sentences and parts of sentences + 3 points that denote a different modulation of the voice in correspondence with the sense + 5 other marks that have their use in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () Group 2 point of point of parenthesis interrogation admiration ’ ¨ ^ - “ Group 3 apostrophe diaeresis caret hyphen inverted commas Devis 1791, 1793, 1795

Type 2: 4 points that are used in writing for a double purpose + 3 points that require a particular inflection of the voice corresponding with the sentiment of the writer + 9 marks , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () Group 2 interrogation point note of exclamation parenthesis “(”) - ’

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe ^ ¶ § Group 3 caret paragraph section * * or ― ¨ ˘ asterisks diaeresis breve dash Harrison 1794~~

~~265~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 3: 4 points which denote the time or length of a pause + 3 points that require a different modulation of the voice in correspondence with the sense + 10 marks , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () ([])

~~Group 2 interrogation note of parenthesis point exclamation brackets “” - ’ ^ * † ǁ~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret asterisk~~

~~Group 3 obelisk~~

~~parallel lines ☞ ´ ¨ ˘ ˆ index accent dialysis breve circumflex Burn 1772, 1778, 1786~~

Type 4: 4 points that are used in writing for a double purpose + 3 points that require a particular inflection of the voice corresponding with the sentiment of the writer + 12 marks , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () Group 2 interrogation point note of exclamation parenthesis “” - ’ ^

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret ¶ § * * * or ― † ǁ paragraph section asterisks obelisk Group 3 dash parallel lines ☞ ¨ ˘ [] index diaeresis breve brackets Harrison 1800~~

~~266~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 5.a: 4 points or marks that distinguish in writing the pauses or stops in a sentence + 3 points that denote a different modulation of the voice according to the sense of the writer or speaker + 13 marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () Group 2 interrogation admiration parenthesis point “ - ’ ˆ ¶

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph~~

~~Group 3 § * † ǁ ‡ ☞ ´ ″ section or asterisk obelisk or index or fore- accent division dagger finger pointing double [no terms] accent~~

~~¨ ˆ [] diaerisis circumflex crotchets or brackets Story 1783, 1793~~

Type 5.b: 4 points denote the length or time of a pause + 3 other points which require a different modulation of the voice + 13 other marks , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () Group 2 interrogation admiration parenthesis

~~“” or ‘’ - ’ ˆ ¶~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph circumflex § * † or ‡ ǁ ☞ Group 3 section asterism obelisk parallels index~~

~~´ ` ˘ [] accent breve brackets~~

~~Meikleham 1795, 1797~~

~~267~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 6.a: 4 points or stops considered as intervals in reading + 3 [no term is given] + 14 most usual marks in writing and reading , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () Group 2 interrogation note of parenthesis admiration “ - ’ ^ ¶

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph § * † ☞ ´ Group 3 section asterisk obelisk index accent~~

~~¨ ˘ ˆ [] dialysis breve circumflex parenthesis or brackets Wise 1754, 1760, 1762, 1763, 1766, 1772, 1773; Woolgar 1766~~

Type 6.b: 4 principal marks or points that distinguish the several stops or pauses in a sentence + 3 points that denote a different modulation of the voice according to the sense + 14 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () Group 2 point of point of parenthesis interrogation admiration “ ” - ’ ^

~~quotation end of a hyphen apostrophe caret quotation ¶ § * † ǁ ‡ ☞~~

~~paragraph section asterisk obelisk index~~

~~or dagger Group 3~~

~~parallel lines~~

~~double obelisk(s) ¨ ˆ [] { dialysis circumflex crotchets or braces brackets Fenning 1771, 1790?, 1793, 1800~~

~~268~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 6.c: 4 points used to express the pauses in discourse + 3 other points that affect the modulation of the voice + 14 other (principal) marks in writing that are necessary to the sense , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () Group 2 point of point of parenthesis interrogation admiration “” - ’ ˆ ¶

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph § * † ☞ ´ Group 3 section asterism or obelisk index or hand accent star ¨ ˘ ˆ [] dialysis breve circumflex crotchets Hodson 1800~~

Type 7.a: 4 points that mark the several pauses or rests in a sentence + 3 points that denote a different alteration of the voice according to the sense of the writer or speaker + 15 other marks used in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! ()

~~Group 2 interrogation admiration parenthesis~~

~~interrogation exclamation point point “” - ’ ˆ ¶~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph § * † ǁ ‡ ☞ ´ ″~~

~~section or asterisk obelisk or index or fore- accent~~

~~division dagger finger pointing Group 3 double accent parallel lines~~

~~double obelisks ¨ ˘ ˆ [] {} diaerisis breve circumflex brackets or braces crotchets Raine 1771, 1776~~

~~269~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 7.b: 4 points that mark the pauses in discourse + 3 points that denote a different modulation of the voice, in correspondence to the sense + other 15 characters that are also frequently used in composition , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () Group 2 interrogative exclamation parenthesis point point “” - ’ ˆ ¶

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph~~

~~circumflex (1795, 1796, Group 3 1797) § * † and ǁ ☞ ´ ` section asterisk obelisk index or hand acute accent~~

~~parallels grave accent ¨ ˉ and ˘ ― [] { diaeresis [no term] ellipsis crotchets or brace brackets breve Murray 1798b, 1799b, 1800~~

Type 8: 4 marks which distinguish the members of a sentence + 3 other marks + 16 other usual marks in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full-stop ? ! () Group 2 interrogation exclamation parenthesis “ - ’ ˆ

quotation hyphen apostrophe caret ¶ § * † ‡ paragraph section or division asterism obelisk Group 3 ǁ ☞ ´ ¨ parallels index accent diaeresis ˘ ˆ [] } breve circumflex brackets brace Metcalfe 1771

~~270~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 9: 4 principal stops + 3 other points which must be noticed + 17 particular marks frequently used as directories to something that ought to be noticed , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! ()

~~Group 2 note of note of parenthesis interrogation admiration or exclamation “” - ’ ˆ ¶ §~~

quotation- hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph section marks * † ☞ ǁ ´ ` Group 3 asterism obelisk index or parallels acute grave or asterisk hand ¨ and ― ˘ ˆ [] } diaeresis or breve circumflex brackets or brace dialysis crotchets

~~ellipsis or elleipsis Postlethwaite 1795~~

Type 10: 4 marks which distinguish the members of a sentence + 3 other marks + 18 other usual marks in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full-stop ? ! () Group 2 interrogation exclamation parenthesis “ ” - ’ ˆ ¶

quotation end of a hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph quotation § * † ‡ ǁ ☞ ´ Group 3 section or asterism obelisk parallels index accent division ¨ ˘ ˆ ― [] } diaeresis breve circumflex ellipsis brackets brace Metcalfe 1777

~~271~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~c) 4 + 4 + ----~~

~~Type 1: 4 points + 4 vicarious points + 5 marks in writing , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! () []~~

~~Group 2 interrogation- exclamation- parenthesis parathesis point point brackets “” ‘’ - ˆ * † ¶ § ( ) ¨~~

~~( ) [no term] hyphen caret asterism dialysis~~

~~obelisk Group 3 paragraph~~

~~section~~

~~superior numbers~~

~~superior letters Lowe 1737~~

~~d) 4 + 5 + ----~~

Type 1: 4 pauses, stops or points + 5 marks denote the various manners of pronunciation + 7 marks , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop () [] ? ! Italick or capital letter Group 2 parenthesis parathesis, interrogation exclamation, emphasis brackets admiration (1792) “ - ’ ˆ

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret § * † ǁ ☞ Group 3 section asterism index~~

~~obelisk~~

~~parallels Gough 1760, 1792~~

~~272~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~e) 4 + 6 + ----~~

Type 1: 4 points or stops that direct what kind of pause is to be observed + 6 marks or points that denote various manners of pronunciation + 9 marks or points that do more strictly relate to the orthography or writing of words , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! ()

~~erotesis or ecphonesis or parenthesis or Group 2 interrogation admiration interposition Italick or capital [] ¡ or < letter parathesis or irony emphasis exposition “ - ’~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophy apostrophe (1722) ^ ¶ § caret or note of paragraph section or division Group 3 induction * † ☞ asterism obelisk index or spit Greenwood 1711, 1722, 1729, 1753~~

~~f) 4 + 7 + ----~~

Type 1: 4 points or stops that direct what kind of pause is to be observed + 7 marks or points that denote various manners of pronunciation + 9 marks or points that do more strictly relate to the orthography or writing of words , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full stop ? ! () []

erotesis ecphonesis parenthesis or parathesis interrogation admiration interposition exposition Group 2 interrogative point wonder brackets exclamation Italick or capital ¡ or < } letter irony emphasis braces “ - ’

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe apostrophy Group 3 ^ ¶ § caret or note of paragraph section or division induction * † ☞ asterism obelisk index or spit Greenwood 1737, 1750, 1759, 1761, 1763, 1770~~

~~273~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~g) 6 + ---- + ----~~

~~Type 1: 6 pauses or stops + 2 [no term is given] + 16 characters used in grammar, rhetoric and poetry , ; :~~

~~comma semicolon colon Group 1 . ? ! period note of note of interrogation admiration () ¶ Group 2 parenthesis paragraph “” - ’ ^~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret § * † ǁ~~

~~section asterisk obelisk or dagger parallels~~

~~Group 3 ☞ ´ ¨ ˘ index accent diaeresis or [no term] dialysis ― or … [] } ˉ ellipsis crotchets or brace [no term] brackets~~

~~Coar 1796~~

~~Type 2: 6 stops considered as intervals in reading + 4 notes or distinctions of pause + 16 marks or notes to be met with in reading , ; :~~

comma semicolon colon Group 1 . ? ! period or full interrogation admiration stop point of point of interrogation admiration or exclamation () ― [no symbol] [no symbol] Group 2 parenthesis double period break or paragraph double break “(”) - ’ ^

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret ¶ § * † ǁ~~

~~paragraph section asterism obelisk~~

~~asterisk (Buchanan 1792) parallels~~

☞ ´ ¨ ˘ Group 3 index accent diaeresis breve ^ ― [] } circumflex (out ellipsis crotchets brace of use) chrochets (Buchanan 1784) Buchanan 1762, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1780, 1784, 1792; Anonymous or Hall (ECEG) 1789

~~274~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 3: 6 most common points or pauses that have a sort of musical proportion + 9 other points that are not so common + 6 marks , ; :~~

~~comma semicolon colon Group 1 . ? ! period interrogation admiration or exclamation~~

~~() “ -~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen ’ ^ ¶ apostrophe caret paragraph Group 2 § * † ǁ ☞ [no term] asterisk or asterism index~~

~~obelisk~~

~~parallel lines ´ ¨ ˘~~

~~accent dieresis or dialysis breve~~

~~^ [] } circumflex (out of use) parathesis brace Group 3 crotchets~~

~~brackets Hodgson 1787~~

~~h) 7 + 2 + ----~~

~~Type 1.a: 7 stops + 2 principal notes + 8 marks , ; : .~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ― [no symbol] [no symbol] double period paragraph double paragraph ? ! Group 2 note of interrogation note of admiration () “” - ’~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe Group 3 ^ and ― * ☞ ¨ caret asterism index dialysis~~

~~ellipsis Crocker 1772~~

~~275~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Type 1.b: 7 stops or points + 2 notes + 9 marks , ; : .~~

~~Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ― [no symbol] [no symbol] double period paragraph double paragraph ? ! Group 2 interrogation admiration () “” -~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen ’ ^ * ǁ † apostrophe caret asterism Group 3 parallel lines~~

~~dagger ☞ ¨ ― index dialysis ellipsis Crocker 1775, 1786~~

~~276~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~BRANCH 4. Punctuation marks gathered in 4 groups:~~

~~a) 4 + ---- + ---- + ----~~

Type 1: 4 stops of the voice + 2 notes which may be termed notes of affection + 13 other marks to be met with in reading + 4 marks that relate to single words , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period or full- point ? !

~~Group 2 interrogation exclamation or admiration () “ - ’ ˆ~~

~~parenthesis quotation hyphen apostrophe caret circumflex ¶ § * † and ǁ ☞~~

~~paragraph section asterisk or obelisk index or hand Group 3 asterism parallels ― [] {} ellipsis brackets or braces crotchets ¨ ˆ ´ ″ ˉ ˘~~

~~Group 4 dialysis or circumflex accent long diaeresis double accent short Newbery 1745, 1748, 1752, 1752, 1769, 1770?, 1776; Anonymous or Newbery (ECEG) 1776~~

~~277~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Type 2: 4 points or stops that mark the pauses in discourse + 3 points that denote a different modulation of the voice in correspondence to the sense + 1 [no term is given] + 15 other characters made use of in composition , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon colon period ? ! ()

~~interrogative exclamation parenthesis point point Group 2 note of note of interrogation exclamation~~

~~point of interrogation Group 3 ― dash “” - ’ ˆ ¶~~

~~quotation hyphen apostrophe caret paragraph circumflex § * † and ǁ ☞ ´ `~~

~~section asterisk obelisk index or hand acute accent Group 4~~

~~parallels grave accent ¨ ˉ and ˘ ― [] } diaeresis [no term] ellipsis crotchets or brace brackets breve Murray 1795, 1796, 1797a, 1798a, 1799a~~

~~278~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~BRANCH 5. Punctuation marks gathered in 5 groups:~~

Type 1: 4 orthographical stops or symbols of pause + 2 pauses + 4 distinctive characters analogical to pauses + 4 usual signs of reference + 4 [no term or classification is provided] , ; : . Group 1 comma semicolon or half- colon full stop or colon period ? !

~~Group 2 pause of pause of admiration interrogation [] () ¶ § Group 3 crotchets or hooks parenthesis paragraph section * † ǁ ☞~~

~~Group 4 asterism or obelisk parallels index or hand asterisk~~

~~’ (1766) ― or … or “” ‘’ Group 5 * * * apostrophe blank [no term] Elphinston 1765, 1766~~

~~279~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~APPENDIX B. Index of authors and systems of punctuation~~

~~AUTHOR BRANCH TYPE~~

Anon. or Gildon and Brightland (ECEG) 2 a) 7.a.; 9.a. Anon. (1746) 2 c) 5.a. Anon. (1770-1771) 1 2 Anon. or Newbery? (ECEG) 4 a) 1 Anon. (1788a) 1 3 Anon. (1788b) 2 a) 2 Anon. or Hall (ECEG) 3 g) 2 Anon. (1791) 2 a) 3.b. Anon. or Doway (ECEG) 2 a) 2 Ash 2 a) 5.a.; c) 5.b. Barker 1 4 Bettesworth 2 c) 7 Bicknell 3 a) 3 Bingham 2 a) 2 Brittain 2 a) 3.a. Buchanan 3 g) 2 Bullen 2 a) 4 Burn 2, 3 a) 2; b) 3 Burr 1 2 Carter 2 c) 7 Coar 3 g) 1 Coote 3 a) 1 Chown 2 c) 4 Corbet, John 1 6 Corbet, James 2 a) 6.a. Crocker 3 h) 1.a., 1.b. Devis 3 b) 1 Elphinston 5 1 Gardiner 2 a) 5.c. Green 1 7 Fenning 3 b) 6.b. Fisher 2 c) 7 Fogg 2 a) 10 Francis 2 a) 5.a. Gough 3 d) 1 Greenwood 3 e) 1; f) 1 Harrison 3 b) 2., 4. Hodson 3 b) 6.c. J.G. 2 a) 7.b. Johnston 2 d) 1 Jones 1 1 Hodgson 2, 3 c) 1; g) 3 Hornsey 1 5 Ireland 2 c) 3. Loughton 2 b) 1.a., 1.b. Lowe 3 c) 1. Lowth 2 a) 2.

~~280~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Maittaire 2 e) 1 Martin 2 a) 5.b. Meikleham 2, 3 a) 2.; b) 5.b. Mennye 1 8 Metcalfe 3 b) 8, 10. Miller 2 c) 2 McGowan 1 2 Murray 1, 3, 4 1; b) 7.b.; a) 2 Newbery 4 a) 1 Pape 2 e) 2 Postlethwaite 3 b) 9 Raine 3 b) 7.a. Rhodes 2 a) 3.c. Shaw 2 a) 9.b. Smetham 2 c) 6 Stapleton 2 a) 1 Steele 2 a) 9.a. Stirling 2 a) 8 Story 3 b) 5.a. Turner 2 f) 1, g) 1 Ward 2 a) 2 Ward H. 2 a) 6.b. Webster 1, 2 1; a) 2 Wilson G. 3 a) 2 Wilson J. 2 c) 7 Wise 3 b) 6.a. Woolgar 3 b) 6.a. Wright G. 2 d) 2

~~281~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~APPENDIX C. English grammars: a chronological list of the editions consulted per author~~

~~AUTHORS (75) GRAMMARS (80) EDITIONS (238)~~

~~ANON. OR GILDON A Grammar of the English 1711, 1712, 1712, 1712, 1714, 1721, AND BRIGHTLAND Tongue 1735?, 1746, 1759 (ECEG)~~

~~GREENWOOD An Essay towards a Practical 1711, 1722, 1729, 1753 English Grammar~~

~~MAITTAIRE The English Grammar 1712~~

~~BARKER An English Grammar 1733~~

~~LOUGHTON A Practical Grammar of the 1734, 1735, 1744, 1749 English Tongue~~

~~STIRLING A Short View of English 1735, 1740 Grammar~~

~~GREENWOOD The Royal English Grammar 1737, 1750, 1759, 1761, 1763, 1770~~

~~LOWE English Grammar Reformd 1737 [sic]~~

~~TURNER An Abstract of English 1739, 1741 Grammar and Rhetoric~~

~~CORBET An Introduction to the English 1743 Grammar~~

~~NEWBERY An Easy Introduction to the 1745, 1748, 1752, 1752, 1769, 1770?, English Language (then, 1776 Grammar Made Familiar and Easy)~~

~~ANONYMOUS A New English Grammar 1746, 1760~~

~~FISHER A New Grammar, with 1753, 1754, 1762, 1763, 1767, 1768, Exercises of Bad English, 1771, 1779, 1780?, 1785, 1788, 1789, (then A Practical New 1789, 1791, 1794, 1795, 1795, 1800 Grammar)~~

~~MARTIN An Introduction to the English 1754, 1757, 1766 Language~~

~~WISE The Newest Young Man’s 1754, 1760, 1762, 1763, 1766, 1772, Companion 1773~~

~~GOUGH A Practical Grammar of the 1760, 1792 English Tongue~~

~~282~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~ASH Grammatical Institutes 1761, 1771, 1772, 1775, 1777, 1777, 1780, 1781, 1783, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1788, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1796, 1798, 1799~~

~~BUCHANAN The British Grammar 1762, 1768, 1784~~

LOWTH A Short Introduction to 1762, 1763, 1763, 1764, 1764, 1765, English Grammar 1765, 1769, 1769, 1771, 1772, 1774, 1775, 1775, 1775, 1778, 1778, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1783, 1785, 1786, 1786, 1790, 1791, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1795, 1799, 1799

~~ELPHINSTON The Principles of the English 1765 (2 vol.), 1766 Language Digested~~

~~BURN A Practical Grammar of the 1766, 1772, 1778, 1786 English Language~~

~~WARD A Practical Grammar of the 1766, 1767 English Language (then, A Grammar of the English Language)~~

~~WOOLGAR Youth’s Faithful Monitor 1766~~

~~BUCHANAN A Regular English Syntax 1767, 1769, 1780, 1792~~

~~WILSON The Youth’s Pocket- 1769 Companion~~

~~HODGSON A Practical English Grammar 1770, 1787~~

~~ANONYMOUS The Female Miscellany 1770-1771~~

~~FENNING A New Grammar of the 1771, 1790?, 1793, 1800 English Language~~

~~JONES The Circles of Gomer 1771~~

~~METCALFE The Rudiments of the English 1771, 1777 Tongue~~

~~RAINE English Rudiments 1771, 1776~~

~~CROCKER A Practical Introduction to 1772, 1775, 1786 English Grammar and Rhetoric~~

~~JOHNSTON A Short Grammar of the 1772 English Language~~

~~CARTER A Practical English Grammar 1773~~

~~MCGOWAN Introduction to the English 1773 Tongue~~

~~283~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~SMETHAM The Practical Grammar 1774~~

~~ANONYMOUS OR Grammar and Rhetorick [sic] 1776 NEWBERY (ECEG)~~

~~WARD A Short but Clear System of 1777 English Grammar~~

~~BETTESWORTH The English Grammar 1778 Epitomis’d [sic]~~

~~SHAW A Methodical English 1778, 1785, 1788 Grammar~~

~~GREEN A Short Abstract of English 1779 Grammar~~

~~ANONYMOUS OR English Grammar 1781 DOWAY (ECEG)~~

~~MEIKLEHAM A Comprehensive Grammar 1781, 1795, 1797~~

~~STEELE Youth’s Preceptor 1782~~

~~STORY An Introduction to English 1783, 1793 Grammar~~

~~CORBET A Concise System of English 1784, 1785 Grammar~~

~~IRELAND Beauties in Prose and Verse 1784~~

~~WEBSTER A Grammatical Institute of the 1784, 1785, 1787, 1787?, 1790, 1792, English Language 1792, 1794, 1796, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1800~~

~~MENNYE An English Grammar 1785~~

~~ANONYMOUS A Key to Spelling 1788~~

~~ANONYMOUS Rudiments of English 1788 Grammar~~

~~BRITTAIN Rudiments of English 1788, 1790 Grammar~~

~~CHOWN English Grammar Epitomised 1788~~

~~COOTE Elements of the Grammar of 1788 the English Language~~

~~ANONYMOUS OR English Grammar 1789 HALL (ECEG)~~

~~BICKNELL The Grammatical Wreath 1790~~

~~BINGHAM The Young Lady’s Accidence 1790, 1794, 1796, 1799~~

~~284~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~FRANCIS A Concise Introduction to 1790 English Grammar~~

~~PAPE A Key to English Grammar 1790~~

~~ANONYMOUS Outlines of English Grammar 1791~~

~~DEVIS The Accidence 1791, 1793, 1795~~

~~FOGG Elementa Anglicana 1792 ( vol. 1)~~

~~WILSON Fisher’s Grammar Improved 1792, 1797~~

~~HORNSEY A Short English Grammar in 1793 Two Parts~~

~~HARRISON Institutes of English Grammar 1794~~

~~WRIGHT The Principles of Grammar 1794~~

~~MILLER A Concise Grammar of the 1795 English Language~~

~~MURRAY English Grammar 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799~~

~~POSTLETHWAITE The Grammatical Art 1795 Improved~~

~~RHODES A Concise English Grammar 1795~~

~~COAR A Grammar of the English 1796 Tongue~~

~~FOGG Elementa Anglicana 1796 (vol. 2)~~

~~BULLEN Rudiments of English 1797 Grammar~~

~~BURR A Compendium of English 1797 Grammar~~

~~MURRAY An Abridgment 1797, 1798, 1799, 1800~~

~~STAPLETON The Road to Knowledge 1797~~

~~GARDINER The Young Ladies’ English 1799 Grammar~~

~~J.G. An Easy Introduction to the 1799 English Language~~

~~HARRISON Rudiments of English 1800 Grammar~~

~~HODSON The Accomplished Tutor 1800 (vol. 1)~~

~~285~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~286~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~8. References~~

A. Primary sources A Pocket Dictionary or Complete English Expositor. (1753). London: printed for J. Newbery. Adam, Alexander (1772). The Principles of Latin and English Grammar. By Alexander Adam, Rector of the High School of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: printed for A. Kincaid and W. Creech; and T. Cadell, in the Strand, London. Adventurer, The (1752-1754). Volume the Second. ― Tentanda via est; quâ me quoque possim Tollere humo, victorque virûm volitare per ora. Virg. London: Printed for J. Payne, at Pope’s Head in Pater-Noster Row. Ainsworth, Robert (1736). Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ Compendiarius: or, a Compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue, Designed for the Use of the British Nations: in Three Parts. [...] By Robert Ainsworth. [Volume 1]. London: Printed for J. J. and P. Knapton […]. ______. (1698). The most natural and easie way of institution containing proposals for making a domestic education less chargeable to parents and more easie and beneficial to children: by which method, youth may not only make a very considerable progress in languages, but also in arts and sciences, in two years. London: Printed for Christopher Hussey [...]. Alderson, James (1795). English Grammatical Exercises; Comprised in a Variety of Examples, under the Different Rules of Syntax. By James Alderson, Master of the English Academy at Ashford, Kent. Author of Orthographical Exercises, in a Series of Moral Letters, &c. London: printed for C. D. Piguenit, No. 8, Aldgate. Anonymous (1680). A Treatise of Stops, Points, or Pauses, And of Notes which are Used in Writing and in Print. London [s. n.] Anonymous or Gildon, Charles and John, Brightland (ECEG) (1711). A Grammar of the English Tongue, with Notes, Giving the Grounds and Reason of Grammar in General. To which is Added, a New Prosodia; or, the Art of English Numbers. Adapted to the Use of Gentlemen and Ladies as well as of the Schools of Great Britain. London: printed for John Brightland, and

~~287~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Sold by Mr. Guy, in Lombard-Street, Mr. Sare at Grays-Inn, Mr. Brown at Temple-bar, Mr. Mount on Tower- hill, Mr. Barnes in Pall-mall, Mr. Sprint in Little-Britain, Mr. Taylor in Pater-Noster-Row, Mr. Straham in Cornhill, Mr. Goudge in Westminster-hall, Mr. Bettesworth on London-bridge, Mr. Clements in St. Paul's Church-Yard, and other Booksellers of Great Britain and Ireland. ______. (1712 [1711]). A Grammar of the English Tongue, with Notes, Giving the Grounds and Reason of Grammar in General. To which are Now Added, the Arts of Poetry, Rhetoric, Logic, &c. Making a Compleat System of an English Education. For the Use of the Schools Of Great Britain and Ireland. The Second Edition, with Improvements. London, Printed by R. Brugis, for John Brightland. […]. ______. (1746 [1711]). A Grammar of the English Tongue: with the Arts of Logick, Rhetorick, Poetry, &c. Illustrated with Useful Notes; Giving the Grounds and Reasons of Grammar in General. The Whole Making a Compleat System of an English Education. Published by John Brightland, or the Use of the Schools of Great-Britain and Ireland. The Seventh Edition, to which is Now Added a Curious New Plate of Thirteen Alphabets Used in Writing and Printing. London: Printed for Henry Lintot. Anonymous (1746). A New English Grammar, by Question and Answer; with Notes. Containing Concise, but Plain and Comprehensive Rules for Speaking or Writing English Correctly: Free from All Unnecessary Difficulties; and the Most Useful Rules Distinguished from the Less Useful, by Being Printed in a Larger Letter. To which is Added, A Suitable Appendix. Compiled from the Best Authorities, Methodized and Interspersed with New Observations. London: Printed in the Year M.DCC.XLVI. Anonymous (1755). The Complete Letter-Writer: or, new and polite English secretary. Containing directions to write letters on all occasions, in a polite, easy, and proper manner; with a great variety of examples, from the best authors, on business, duty, amusement, affection, courtship, love, and friendship, &c. to which is prefix’d, a plain and compendious English grammar. London: printed for S. Crowder and H. Woodgate, at the Golden-Ball, in Pater-Noster-Row. Anonymous (1762). Review of A Course of Lectures upon Elocution, by Thomas Sheridan. Critical Review 14: 161-170. Anonymous (1769). Rudiments of the English tongue. Newcastle.

~~288~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Anonymous (1770-1771). The Female Miscellany: in Two Parts. Part I. Containing a Sketch of English Grammar; an Abridgement of the Holy History; a Small Collection of Fables. &c. Part II. Consisting of a Series of Letters Addressed to a Young Lady who has Made some Progress in Reading. For the Use of a Boarding School. 2 vols., vol. I. Salop: printed by Stafford Pryse, and Sold by all the Booksellers in Town and Country. Anonymous or Newbery, John? (ECEG) (1776). Grammar and Rhetorick, Being the First and Third Volumes of The Circle of the Sciences. Considerably Enlarged, and Greatly Improved. London: printed for T. Carnan, and F. Newbery, Jun. at No. 65, in St. Paul's Church Yard. Anonymous (1775). “Review of Devis (1775)”. Critical Review 39: 343. Anonymous or Doway (ECEG) (1781). English grammar. Doway: printed by L. Derbaix. Anonymous (1788a). A Key to Spelling, and Introduction to the English Grammar. Designed for the Use of Charity and Sunday-Schools. London. Anonymous (1788b). Rudiments of English Grammar; for the Use of Young Beginners. Falmouth: printed by E. Elliot, on the Market-Strand. Anonymous or Hall, James (ECEG) (1789). English Grammar: or, an Essay towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and Inditing Elegantly. Printed for, and Sold by, James Hall, Teacher of the English Language, Cupar Fife. Anonymous (1791). Outlines of English Grammar. For the Use of Children: Intended as an Introduction to Performances upon a More Extended Scale. Worcester: Printed for J. & T. Holl; and Sold by All Booksellers. Ash, John (1760). Grammatical Institutes; or, Grammar, Adapted to the Genius of the English Tongue. By J. Ash. Worcester: printed by R. Lewis, Bookseller, in High-Street. ______. (1761 [1760]). Grammatical Institutes; or, an Easy Introduction to Dr. Lowth's English Grammar, Designed for the Use of Schools, And to Lead Young Gentlemen and Ladies into the Knowledge of the First Principles of the English Language. By John Ash, with an Appendix, Containing, I. The Declension of Irregular and Defective Verbs. II. The Application of the Grammatical Institutes. III. Some Useful Observations on the Ellipsis. The

~~289~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected by the Author. London, Printed for E. and C. Dilly […]. ______. (1775). The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language. London: printed for Edward and Charles Dilly. ______. (1785 [1760]). Grammatical Institutes: or An Easy Introduction to Dr. Lowth's English Grammar: Designed for the Use of Schools, and to Lead Young Gentlemen and Ladies, into the Knowledge of the First Principles of the English Language. By John Ash, L.L.D. With an Appendix. Containing, I. The Declension of Irregular and Defective Verbs. II. The Application of the Grammatical Institutes. III. Some Useful Observations on the Ellipsis. IV. Excercises of Bad English. V. Lessons on the English Language. To which are Added, Select Lessons, to Instill Just Sentiments of Virtue in Youth. A New Edition. Revised, Corrected, and Enlarged. Printed at Worcester; by Isaiah Thomas; for E. Battelle, and W. Green, in Boston. ______. (1796 [1760]). Grammatical Institutes; or, an Easy Introduction to Dr. Lowth's English Grammar: Designed for the Use of Schools, And to Lead Young Gentlemen and Ladies into the Knowledge of the First Principles of the English Language. By John Ash, LL.D. With an Appendix, Containing, I. The Declension of Irregular and Defective Verbs. II. The Application of the Grammatical Institutes. III. Some Useful Observations on the Eilipsis. IV. Exercises of Bad English. V. Lessons on the English Language. To which are Added, Select Lessons, to Instil Just Sentiments of Virtue into Youth. And a Collection of Books Proper for Young Gentlemen and Ladies, to Shorten the Path to Knowledge. A New Edition, Revised, Corrected, and Enlarged. London, Printed for W. Osborne, T. Griffin: and H. Mozley and Co. Gainsbrough. Bailey, Nathan (1721). An Universal Etymological Dictionary. London: Printed for J. J. and P. Knapton, D. Midwinter and A. Ward, A. Bettesworth and C.Hitch, J. Pemberton, J. Osborn and T. Longman, C. Rivington, F. Clay, J. Batley, R. Heett, and T. Hatchett. ______. (1730). Dictionarum Britannicum: Or a more Compleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than any Extant. Containing Not only the Words, and their Explication; but their Etymologies from the Antient British, Teutonick, Low and High Dutch, Saxon, Danish, Norman and Modern French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, &c. each in its proper

~~290~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Character. Also Explaining hard and technical Words, or Terms of Art, in all the Arts, Sciences, and Mysteries following. Together with Accents directing to their proper Pronunciation, shewing both the Orthography and Orthoepia of the English Tongue, VIZ. In […]. Collected by several Hands, The Mathematical Part by G. Gordon, the Botanical by P. Miller. The Whole Revis’d and Improv’d, with many thousand Additions, By N. Bailey […]. London: Printed for T. Cox at the Lamb under the Royal- Exchange. Baker, R. (1770). Reflections on the English Language, In the Nature of Vaugelas’s Reflections on the French. London. Barker, Isaac (1733). An English Grammar Shewing the Nature and Grounds of the English Language, In its Present State. With Some General Observations and Directions Relating to the Spelling, Pronouncing, and Writing of it. By Isaac Barker. York: Printed by Tho. Gent, for John Hildvard, Bookseller, at the Bible in Stonegate. Bate, Julius (1767). Critica Hebræa: or, a Hebrew-English Dictionary, without Points: in which the Several Derivatives are Reduced to their Genuine Roots, Their Specific Significations from thence Illustrated, And Exemplified by Passages Cited at Length from Scripture, The Several Versions of which are Occasionally Corrected. The Whole Supplying the Place of a Commentary on the Words and more Difficult Passages in the Sacred Writings. By Julius Bate, M.A. Rector of Sutton, in Sussex. London: Printed for M. Folingsby, at Numb. 4, in Fleet-street. Batteaux, Charles (1746). Les Beaux Arts Reduits a un Même Principe [The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle]. Ex Noto Fictum Sequar. Hor. Art. Pöet. A Paris, Chez Durand, Libraire, Rue S. Jacques, à S. Landry & au Griffon. Bellum Grammaticale or, the Grammatical Battle Royal [...]. (1712). London: [...]. Bettesworth, John (1778). The English Grammar Epitomis'd; wherein the Parts of Speech are Made Clear and Easy. Some Sentences Inserted, and Each Word therein Grammatically Explained, with a Reason Assigned for the Same; to which are Added the Several Rules of Syntax, in Promiscuous Examples of Good and Bad English. The Whole is Founded on so Easy a

~~291~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Plan, that Persons of the Earliest Understanding may be Initiated into a Knowledge of their Mother Tongue with the Greatest Facility and Delight. By J. Bettesworth, Master of the Academy in Quaker’s Buildings, West Smithfield. Radix Eruditionis Amara; Sed Fructus Dulces. Printed for G. Keeble and the Author, and Sold by them […]. Bicknell, Alexander (1790). The Grammatical Wreath; or, a Complete System of English Grammar; Being a Selection of the Most Instructive Rules from all the Principal English Grammars: In Two Parts: Part I. Containing such Rules as are Necessary for the Instruction of Youth, with Pertinent Examples for their Elucidation. Part II. Such further Rules and Observations as are Needful for the Attainment of the English Language in its Utmost Purity and Elegance. A Work not only Calculated for the Improvement of the Inhabitants of Great Britain in their Native Tongue, but from which the English Language may be Acquired by Foreigners, with the Greatest Facility. By Alexr. Bicknell, Esq. London: printed for the Author, and Sold by R. Baldwin, Paternoster-Row, and J. Debrett, Piccadilly. Bingham, Caleb (1790 [1785]). The Young Lady's Accidence or, a Short and Easy Introduction to English Grammar. Designed, Principally, for the Use of Young Learners, More Especially those of the Fair Sex, though Proper for Either. By Caleb Bingham A.M. [...]. The Fourth Edition, Corrected (Published according to Act.) Boston: printed by Thomas and Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbury Street. Blair, Hugh (1783). Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. By Hugh Blair, D. D. One of the Ministers of the High Church, and Professor of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the University, of Edinburgh. In Three Volumes. Vol. I. Dublin: Printed for Messrs. Whitestone, Colles, Burnet, Moncrieffe, Gilbert, Walker, Exshaw, White, Beatty, Burton, Byrne, Parker, and Cash. ______. (1794 [1785]). The Young Lady’s Accidence: or, a Short and Easy Introduction to English Grammar. Designed, principally, for the Use of Young Learners, more especially those of the Fair Sex, though proper for either. By Caleb Bingham, A.M. [...]. The Eighth Edition. (Published according to Act of Congress.) Printed at Boston, by I. Thomas and E. T. Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbury Street. ______. (1796 [1785]). The Young Lady’s Accidence: or, a Short and Easy Introduction to English Grammar. Designed, principally, for the Use of Young Learners, more

~~292~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

especially those of the Fair Sex, though proper for either. By Caleb Bingham, A.M. Author of the Child’s Companion, and American Preceptor. [...]. The Ninth Edition. Published according to Act of Congress. Printed at Boston, by I. Thomas and E. T. Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbury Street. For the Author; and sold by him, No. 45 Cornhill. ______. (1799 [1785]). The Young Lady’s Accidence: or, a Short and Easy Introduction to English Grammar. Designed, principally, for the use of young Learners, more especially those of the Fair Sex, though proper for either. By Caleb Bingham, A.M. Author of the Child’s Companion, and American Preceptor, and Columbian Orator. [...]. The Eleventh Edition. Published according to Act of Congress. Boston, printed by Manning & Loring, For David West. Sold by him, at Book-Store, Nº. 56, Cornhill. Sold also by the Author, Nº. 44, Cornhill. Bridel, Ed. P. (1797). An Introduction to English Grammar: Intended also to Assist Young Persons in the Study of other Languages, and to Remove Many of the Difficulties which Impede their Progress in Learning. London: printed and Sold by James Phillips & Son, George Yard, Lombard Street, for E. P. Bridel, Master of an Academy at Stoke Newington, Middlesex; and may be Had of all the Booksellers. Brittain, Lewis (1788). Rudiments of English Grammar by Lewis Brittain Regent of Bornhem College. Louvain, Printed by L. J. Urban. ______. (1790 [1788]). Rudiments of English Grammar by the Rev. Lewis Brittain, Regent of the English College at Bornhem. The Second Edition. London: printed by J.P. Coghlan, No. 37. Duke Street, Grosvenor Square; and Sold by Messrs. Robinsons, Pater Noster Row. Brooksbank, Joseph [Riparius, Jos.] (1657). Orthographia. London: Brown, Richard (1700). The English-school reformed: containing first, rules, shewing the nature of vowels, consonants, syllables, diphthongs, dividing of syllables, and of stops and points. [...] London: printed for A. And J. Churchil, at the Black-Swan in Pater-Noster-Row, and E. Castle next Scotland-Yard. Brown, George (1770?). The New and Complete English Letter-Writer; or, Whole Art of General Correspondence. [...] Including also a New English

~~293~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Grammar; or the English Language Made Perfectly Easy to Every Capacity. [...] By the Rev. George Brown M.A., Author of The New Young Man's Best Companion. Assisted by Several Other Gentlemen of Approved Abilities. London: printed for Alex. Hogg, no. 16, Pater-Noster-Row. Buchanan, James (1757). Linguae Britannicae Vera Pronunciation: or, a New English Dictionary. London: printed for A. Millar. ______. (1762). The British Grammar: or, an Essay, in Four Parts, towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and inditing Elegantly. For the Use of the Schools of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Private Young Gentlemen and Ladies. London: printed for A. Millar in the Strand. ______. (1767). A Regular English Syntax. Wherein is Exhibited, the Whole Variety of English Construction, Properly Exemplified. To which is Added, the Elegant Manner of Arranging Words, and Members of Sentences. The Whole Reduced to Practice, for the Use of Private Young Gentlemen and Ladies, as well as of our Most Eminent Schools. By James Buchanan. London: printed for J. Wren, at the Bible, opposite the New Exchange Buildings in the Strand. ______. (1768). The British Grammar: or, an Essay, in Four Parts, towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and Inditing Elegantly. For the Use of the Schools of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Private Young Gentlemen and Ladies. The Second Edition. […]. London. ______. (1769). A Regular English Syntax. Wherein is exhibited, The whole Variety of English Construction, properly exemplified. To which is added, The elegant Manner of arranging Words, and Members of Sentences. The Whole Reduced to Practice, for the Use of private young Gentlemen and Ladies, as well as of our most eminent Schools. By James Buchanan, Author of the New English Dictionary, British Grammar, British Spelling Book, &c. A New Edition. London: Printed for G. Keith, J. Johnson and J. Payne, G. Pearch, F. Beyth, and G. Burnett. ______. (1779). The British Grammar: or, an Essay, in Four Parts, towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and Inditing Elegantly. For the Use of the Schools of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Private Young Gentlemen and Ladies. The Third Edition. London. ______. (1780). A Regular English Syntax Wherein is exhibited, The whole Variety of English Construction, properly exemplified. To which is added The elegant Manner of arranging Words, and Members of Sentences. The Whole Reduced to

~~294~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Practice, for the Use of private young Gentlemen and Ladies, as well as of our most eminent Schools. By James Buchanan. From the London Edition. Philadelphia: Printed by Styner and Cist, in Second Street. ______. (1784). The British Grammar: or, an Essay, in Four Parts, Towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and Inditing Elegantly, For the Use of the Schools, and of Private Young Gentlemen and Ladies. […]. Boston: Printed by Nathaniel Coverly, for John Norman, and sold at his Shop, near the Boston-Stone. ______. (1792). A Regular English Syntax, Wherein is exhibited, The Whole Variety of English Construction, Properly Exemplified. To which is added The elegant Manner of arranging Words and Members of Sentences. The Whole Reduced to Practice. For the Use of private young Gentlemen and Ladies, as well as of our most eminent Schools. By James Buchanan. The Fifth American Edition. Philadelphia: Printed by Charles Cist, No. 104, in Second-street, near the Corner of Race-street. Buffier, Claude (1709). Grammaire Françoise sur un Plan Nouveau pour en Rendre les Principes plus Clairs & la Pratique plus Aisée. Contenant Divers Traite’s Sur la Nature de la Grammaire en Général; sur l’Usage; sur la Beauté des Langues & sur la Maniere de les Aprendre; sur le Stile; sur l’Ortographe; sur les Accens, sur la Longueur des Silabes Françoises; sur la Ponctuation, & c. Par le Pere Buffier, de la Compagnie de Jesus. A Paris, Chez Nicolas Le Clerc, Rue Saint Jacques, à Faint Lambert. Michel Brunet, Grande Salle du Palais au Mercure Galant. Leconte et Montàlant, Quai des Augustins, à la Ville de Montpeliler. Bullen, Henry St. John (1797). Rudiments of English Grammar, for the Use of Schools. By the Rev. Henry St. John Bullen, B. A. of Trin. Coll. Cambridge, and First Assistant Master at the Grammar School, Bury St. Edmund's. Bury St. Edmund's: Printed and Sold by P. Gedge; Also by G.G. and J. Robinson, Pater-Noster Row, London. Bullokar, William (1586). William Bullokarz Pamphlet for Grammar Or rather too Be Saied hiz Abbreuiation of hiz Grammar for English, Extracted out- of hiz Grammar at-Large. Imprinted at London: by Edmund Bollifant. Burn, John (1766). A Practical Grammar of the English Language: in which, the Several Parts of Speech are Clearly and Methodically Explained; their

~~295~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Concord and Government Reduced to Grammatical Rules, and Illustrated by a Variety of Examples: Together with Rules of Composition, or the Proper Arrangement of Words in Sentences, also Illustrated by Various Examples. For the Use of Schools. Glasgow: printed by Archibald M'Lean, junior; and Sold by the Booksellers in Great Britain. ______. (1772 [1766]). A Practical Grammar of the English Language: In which the Several Parts of Speech are Clearly and Methodically Explained; their Concord and Government Reduced to Grammatical Rules, and Illustrated by a Variety of Examples: Together with Rules of Composition, or the Proper Arrangement of Words in Sentences, also Illustrated by Various Examples. For the Use of Schools. The Second Edition. Glasgow: Printed by Daniel Reid, and Sold by the Booksellers, in Great Britain. Burr, Jonathan (1797). A Compendium of English Grammar, for the Use of Schools and Private Instructors. To which are Annexed, Exercises, Corresponding to the Grammar. By Jonathan Burr, A.M. Boston: printed by Samuel Hall, no. 53, Cornhill. Burrow, James (1768). A few Thoughts upon Pointing and Some Other Helps towards Perspicuity of Expression. Printed for J. Worrall and B. Tovey, near Lincoln’s- Inn. ______. (1771). De Usu et Ratione Interpungendi: An Essay on the Use of Pointing, and the Facility of Practising it. By James Burrow Esq; F.R.S and F.A.S. […]. London, Printed for J. Worrall and B. Tovey, at the Dove, in Bell Yard, near Lincoln’s Inn. ______. (1772). De Ratione et Use Interpungendi: an Essay on Punctuation. By James Burrow Esq; F.R.S. and F.A.S. […]. London: Printed for B. Tovey, at the Dove, in Bell Yard, near Lincoln’s Inn. Butler, Charles (1633). The English Grammar. Oxford. ______. (1634). English Grammar. A. Eichler, ed., (1910). Halle: Nimeyer. Butler, Samuel (1700). Hudibras Compleat. In Three Parts. The Author Samuel Butler. Written in the Time of the Late Wars. Corrected and Amended, With Several Additions and Annotations. London, Printed, and Sold by Thomas Horne, at the South Entrance of the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill. Campbell, George (1776). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Edinburgh.

~~296~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Carter, John (1773). A Practical English Grammar, with Exercises of Bad Spelling and Bad English: or, a plain and Easy Guide to Speaking and Writing the English Language with Accuracy and Correctness. Leeds: printed for John Binns, Bookseller, and Sold by S. Crowder, Pater-noster- Row; E. Johnson, Ave-Mary Lane, and Mess. Richardson and Urquhart, under the Royal Exchange, London, and by all other Booksellers. Cattanach, John (1778). Elements of Pronunciation and Grammar: or, Rudiments of the English Tongue, in Two Parts. Part I. Treats of Letters, Syllables, and Words. In which, also, the Parts of Speech are Explained, and, in a Familiar and Easy Manner, Digested into Pronouncing and Spelling Exercises. Part II. Contains Several Rules of Construction. Notes and Observations are Occasionally Subjoined. Together with Select Lessons for Reading: among which is, The History of Joseph. By John Cattanach. Edinburgh: printed for the Author, and Sold by Drummond; Balfour and co.; Dickson: Creech; Elliot Jamieson; Muschet Stirling; Morison Perth; and other Booksellers in Town and Country. Chambers, Ephraim (1728). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences; Containing The Definitions of the Terms, And Accounts of The Things Signify'd thereby, In the Several Arts, Both Liberal and Mechanical, And the Several Sciences, Human and Divine: The Figures, Kinds, Properties, Productions, Preparations, and Uses, of Things Natural and Artificial; The Rise, Progress, and State of Things Ecclesiastical, Civil, Military, and Commercial: With the Several Systems, Sects, Opinions, &c. among Philosophers, Divines, Mathematicians, Physicians, Antiquaries, Criticks, &c. The Whole Intended as a Course of Antient and Modern Learning. Compiled from the Best Authors, Dictionaries, Journals, Memoirs, Transactions, Ephemerides, &c. in Several Languages. In Two Volumes. By E. Chambers Gent. […]. Volume the First. London: Printed for James and John Knapton […]. ______. (1738). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. [...] The Second Edition, corrected and amended; with some additions. In Two volumes. London [...].

~~297~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1739). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. [...] The Third Edition, corrected and amended; with some additions. In Two volumes. London [...]. ______. (1741). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. [...] The Fourth Edition, corrected and amended; with some additions. In Two volumes. London [...]. ______. (1743). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. [...] The Fifth Edition. In Two volumes. London [...]. ______. (1750). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. [...] The Sixth Edition. In Two volumes. London [...]. ______. (1751-1752). Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. [...] The Seventh Edition, Corrected and Amended. In Two volumes. London [...]. Chown, William (1788). English Grammar Epitomised: or, a Short, Plain, Easy Compendium of English Grammar, for the Use of Youth at Schools, As Well as all those Adult Persons, Who Have hitherto Neglected the Most Useful of All Studies, That of their Mother-Tongue. Wherein the Definitions are Short, the Examples Intelligible, the Rules of Syntax are Exemplified with Examples under Each Rule; Punctuation, or the Use of Stops, with other Marks Used in Grammar, are Illustrated by Examples; Rules for Properly Placing of Capital Letters in Writing; Rules for Reading with Propriety; a Sentence Construed according to the Elements of the English Language; with some Hints and Observations Respecting the Teaching of Youth to Read, with Ease, Profit, and Improvement;-Addressed to the Teachers of Youth. By William Chown, Schoolmaster, At Moulton, near Northampton. Northampton: Printed by T. Dicey and Co. Chrysostom, John, Saint (1759). St. Chrysostom of the Priesthood. In Six Books. Translated from the Greek, by the Rev. John Bunce, M. A. Late Rector of Chingford and Pitsey, in Essex. London: Printed by Samuel Richardson, in Salisbury-Court. Coar, Thomas (1796). A Grammar of the English Tongue. To which are Added Exercises in Bad English, to be Corrected by the Rules of Syntax. By Thomas Coar. London: Printed and Sold by James Phillips, George Yard, Lombard Street. Cooper, Christopher (1687). The English Teacher. London [EL 175]. Coote, Charles (1788). Elements of the Grammar of the English Language. Written in a Familiar Style: Accompanied with Notes Critical and Etymological; and

~~298~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Preceded by an Introduction, Tending to Illustrate the Fundamental Principles of Universal Grammar. By Charles Coote, A. M. Of Pembroke College, Oxford. […] London: Printed for the Author; And Sold by C. Dilly, in the Poultry. Corbet, James (1743). An Introduction to the English Grammar Containing I. A Great Variety of Monosyllables, from the Easiest to the Most Difficult. II. Grammar in All its Parts, to which are Added Large Tables of Words, from Two to Six and Seven Syllables. By James Corbet Philologus. Frustra Contemnuntur pro Parvis, sine Quibus ad Majora Perveniri Nequit. Glasgow: Printed by John Robertson and Mrs. M’Lean. Corbet, John, of Shrewsbury (1784). A Concise System of English Grammar: Designed for the Use of Schools, as well as Private Families. Compiled by John Corbet. […]. Shrewsbury, Printed and Sold by T. Wood. Sold also by Most Other Booksellers. ______. (1785). A Concise System of English Grammar: Designed for the Use of Schools, as well as Private Families. Compiled by John Corbet. […]. Madeley, Printed by J. Edmunds for the Compiler. Crocker, Abraham (1772). A Practical Introduction to English Grammar and Rhetoric. By Abraham Crocker, School-master, at Ilminster. Sherborne: printed by W. Cruttwell, for the Author: and Sold by G. Robinson, No. 25, Pater-noster-Row, London. ______. (1775 [1772]). A Practical Introduction to English Grammar and Rhetoric. By Abraham Crocker, School-master, at Ilminster. A New Edition. London: printed for the Author and Sold by G. Robinson, No. 25. Pater-Noster Row. ______. (1786 [1772]). A Practical Introduction to English Grammar; To Which is Added a Short System of Rhetoric and An Essay on Composition. By A: Crocker, Master of the English and Mathematical School, in Frome. A New and Improved Edition. Taunton: printed for the Author, by J. Poole; and sold by Scatcherd and Whitaker, Ave-Maria-Lane, An G. Robinson & Co., Pater-Noster Row. Daines, Simon (1640). Orthoepia Anglicana: Or, the first principall part of the English grammar. London: Printed by Robert Young and Richard Badger for the Company of Stationers.

~~299~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Darwin, Erasmus (1797). A Plan for the Conduct of Female Education in Boarding Schools. Derby, J. Drewry […] for J. Johnson. (Rept. New York, S. R. Publishers Ltd., Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968). De Seville, Isidore (2006 [627?-630?]). The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Translated, with Introduction and Notes by Stephen A. Barney (et al.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Devis, Ellin (1775). The Accidence: or First Rudiments of English Grammar. Designed for the Use of Young Ladies […] By a Lady. London, the author, sold by J. Beecroft and T. Cadell. ______. (1791 [1775]). The Accidence; or First Rudiments of English Grammar. Designed for the Use of Young Ladies. By Ellin Devis. The Sixth Edition. London: Printed for Bedwell Law. Drelincourt, Charles (1724). The Christian's Defence against the Fears of Death. With Seasonable Directions how to Prepare Ourselves to Die Well. Written Originally in French by the Late Reverend Divine of the Protestant Church of Paris, Char. Drelincourt: Translated into English by Marius D'Assigny, B.D. The Eleventh Edition Newly Corrected: with an Account of the Author, and his Last Minutes. London: Printed for R. Wilkin, D. Midwinter, R. Robinson, B. Cowse, S. Tooke, B. Motte, J. Peele, and J. Lacy. Dryden, John (1673). Marriage A-la-Mode. A Comedy. As it is Acted at the Theatre- Royal. Written by John Dryden, Servant to His Majesty. […]. London, Printed by T.N. for Henry Herringam, and are to be Sold at the Anchor in the Lower Walk of the New Exchange. ______. (1678). All for Love: Or, the World well Lost. A Tragedy, As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal; And Written in Imitation of Shakespeare’s Stile. By John Dryden, Servant to His Majesty. Facile est Verbum Aliquod Ardens (ut ita Dicam) Notare: idque Restinctis Animorum Incendiis Irridere. Cicero. In the Savoy: Printed by Tho. Newcomb, for Henry Herringam, at the Blew Anchor in the Lower Walk of the New-Exchange. ______. (1697). The Works of Virgil: Containing His Pastorals, Georgics, and Aeneis. Translated into English Verse; By Mr. Dryden. Adorn’d with a Hundred Sculptures. Sequiturque Patrem non passibus Aequis. Virg. AEn. 2. London, Printed for Jacob Tonson, at the Judges-Head in Fleetstreet, near the Inner- Temple-Gate.

~~300~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Dyche, Thomas and William Pardon (1735). A New General English Dictionary. London: Richard Ware. Dyer, John (1761). Poems. By John Dyer, L.L.B. Viz. I. Grongar Hill. II. The Ruins of Rome. III. The Fleece, in Four Books. London: Printed by John Hughs, For Messrs. J. and R. Dodsley , in Pallmall. Edwards, Mrs M. C. (1796). A Short Compendium of English Grammar in which the Several Parts of Speech are Clearly Explained and Defined (By Way of Qusetion [sic] and Answer). Brentford, printed by P. Norbury. Elphinston, James (1765). The Principles of the English Language Digested: or, English Grammar Reduced to Analogy. By James Elphinston. In Two Volumes. Vol. II. London: Printed by James Bettenham, and Sold by P. Vaillant, in the Strand; L. Hawes, W. Clarke, and R. Collins in Paternoster-Row; J. Dodsley, in Pall-Mall; and W. Drummond, Edinburgh. Enfield, W. (1775). “Review of Devis (1775)”. Monthly Review 52: 464. Entick, John (1765). The New Spelling Dictionary. London: printed for Edward and Charles Dilly. European Magazine, The and London Review: Containing the Literature, History, Politics, Arts, Manners, Amusements of the Age. […]. By the Philological Society of London. Vol. 12 for 1787. London: Printed for J. Sewell, Cornhill. Fenn, Ellenor (1784). The Female Guardian. Designed to Correct some of the Foibles Incident to Girls, and Supply them with Innocent Amusement for their Hours of Leisure. By a Lady. […]. London: Printed and Sold by John Marshall […]. ______. (1785). The Art of Teaching in Sport; Designed as a Prelude to a Set of Toys, for Enabling Ladies to instill the Rudiments of Spelling, Reading, Grammar, and Arithmetic, under the Idea of Amusement. London, John Marsall and Co. ______. (1794?/1819). The Child’s Grammar, 25th ed., London: printed for J. Harris. ______. (1798a). The Mother’s Grammar. being a Continuation of the Child’s Grammar. with Lessons for Parsing. And a Few Already Done As Examples. London: Printed and sold by John Marsaall [sic].

~~301~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1798b). Parsing Lessons for Elder Pupils: Resolved into Their Elements, for the Assistance of Parents and Teachers. London: Printed for E. Newbery, the Corner of St. Paul’s Church-Yard. ______. (1799). The Child’s Grammar. Designed to Enable Ladies Who May Not Have Attended to the Subject Themselves to Instruct Their Children. Dublin: Printed by Robert Napper for B. Dugdale. Fenning, Daniel (1756?). The Universal Spelling-Book: Or, A New and Easy Guide to the English Language. […] London: Printed for S. Crowder and H. Woodgate, at the Golden Ball, in Pater-noster Row, and B. Collins, at Salisbury. ______. (1767). The New and Complete Spelling Dictionary and Sure Guide to the English Language. London: printed for S. Crowder. ______. (1771). A New Grammar of the English Language; or an Easy Introduction to the Art of Speaking and Writing English with Propriety and Correctness: the Whole Laid Down in the Most Plain and Familiar Manner, and Calculated for the Use, Not Only of Schools, but of Private Gentlemen. By D. Fenning. Author of the Royal English Dictionary (Published by the King's Authority) -The Schoolmaster's Companion in the Knowledge of Arithmetic. -The Universal Spelling-Book. -The New Spelling-Dictionary. -The British Youth's Instructor, or a New and Easy Guide to Practical Arithmetic. -The Ready Reckoner, Being Correct Tables of Accompts Ready Cast up. And the Young Man's Book of Knowledge. London: printed for S. Crowder, at No. 12, Pater-noster-Row. Fielding, Henry (1749). The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. In Four Volumes. By Henry Fielding, Esq; [...]. London: Printed for A. Millar, over-against Catharine- street in the strand. Fielding, Sarah (1744). The Adventures of David Simple: Containing An Account of his Travels Through the Cities of London and Westminster, In the Search of a Real Friend. By a Lady, 2 vols. London: Printed for A. Millar. Fisher, Ann (1745? [1750]). A New Grammar, being the Most Easy Guide to Speaking and Writing the English Language Properly and Correctly. Containing, I. Orthography, or the Use and Sound of Vowels, Diphthongs, and Consonants; with Division of Syllables, and Use of Points. II. Prosody, or the Art of Pronouncing Syllables in Words Truly, whether Long or Short; with Tables of Words Properly Accented. III. Etymology, which Treats of the Several Kinds of Words, or Parts of Speech, their Derivations, Endings, &c. IV. Syntax; or the Order of Construction;

~~302~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

which Shews how to Join Words Aright, in a Sentence or Sentences Together. To which are Added, Exercises of Bad English, in the Manner of Clark's and Bailey's Examples for the Latin, to Prove our Concord by, &c. Designed for the Use of Schools, &c. By the Author of The Child's Christian Education, and others. Newcastle upon Tyne: Printed for I. Thompson and co. by J. Gooding. ______. (1750 [1745?]). A New Grammar with Exercises of Bad English: or, an Easy Guide to speaking and Writing the English Language Properly and Correctly. (Second Edition). Newcastle upon Tyne: printed for I. Thompson and Co. by J. Gooding. ______. (1753 [1745?]). A New Grammar, with Exercises of Bad English: or, an Easy Guide to Speaking and Writing the English Language Properly and Correctly. The Third Edition, with Additions. London: printed for the Author. ______. (1754 [1745?]). A New Grammar with Exercises of Bad English: or, and easy Guide to Speaking and Writing the English Language Properly and Correctly. Newcastle upon Tyne: I. Thompson. ______. (1756). The Pleasing Instructor: or, Entertaining Moralist. Consisting of Select Essays, Relations, Visions and Allegories, Collected from the most Eminent English Authors. To which are prefixed, New Thoughts on Education. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Thomas Slack. ______. (1773). An Accurate New Spelling Dictionary of the English Language (Second edition). London: printed for the author. Fogg, Peter Walkden (1792-1796). Elementa Anglicana; or, the principles of English grammar displayed and exemplified, In a Method Entirely New. In two volumes. By Peter Walkden Fogg. Vol. 1. Containing a Copious Collection of Rules, Examples, and Exercises. Intended for the Use of Pupil. That which Should Always Be Practised, Must at Some Time Be Learnt. ―Watts. Stockport; Printed, for the Author, by J. Clarke: and Sold by T. Knott, No. 47, Lombard-Street, London, and by the Booksellers in Town and Country. ______. (1792-1796). Elementa Anglicana; or, the Principles of English Grammar Displayed and Exemplified, in a Method Quite Original. In Two Volumes. By Peter Walkden Fogg. Vol. II. Containing a Key, in which the

~~303~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Examples of the Former Volume are Analyzed, and its Exercises Performed; Together with Ample Notes and Dissertations, Illustrating the Various Parts of this Extensive Subject. […]. Stockport; Printed for the Author, by J. Clarke: and Sold by T. Knott, No. 47, Lombard-Street, London, and by the Booksellers in General. Forrester, James (1734). The Polite Philosopher; or, An Essay on that Art which Makes a Man Happy in Himself, and Agreeable to Others. […]. Edinburgh, Printed by Robert Freebairn His Majesty’s Printer. Francis, William, of Hook (1790). A Concise Introduction to English Grammar: Compiled by William Francis, of Hook, for the Use of his School. Marlborough: Printed by E. Harold. Gardiner, Jane (1799). The Young Ladies' English Grammar; Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, or Abbreviation of the Grammar. By Jane Gardiner, Beverly. York: printed by Thomas Wilson and Robert Spence, High- Ousegate. Sold by Vernor and Hood, in the Poultry, London; Wilson and Spence, York; M. Turner, Beverley; and all Other Booksellers. Gentleman’s Magazine (1813). July, 1813. Containing [...] By Silvanus Urban, Gent. Printed by Nichols, Son, and Bentley, at Cicero’s Head, Red Lion Passage, Fleet- str. London; where all Letters to the Editor are desired to be addressed, Post-Paid. Gill, Alexander (1619). Logonomia Anglicana. Qua gentis sermo facilius addiscitur. London. Gough, James (1760 [1754]). A Practical Grammar of the English Tongue. Containing the most Material Rules and Observations for Understanding the English Language well, and Writing it with Propriety. The Second Edition, with many Additions. Dublin: printed by Isaac Jackson, at the Globe, in Meath-Street. ______. (1792 [1754]). A Practical Grammar of the English Tongue. Containing The Most Material Rules and Observations for understanding the English Language Well, and Writing it with Propriety. In Five Parts. […] The Sixth Edition. […]. Dublin: printed by and sold by R. Jackson, Meath- Street. Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée. (1660). Paris. [= Arnauld, Antoine and Claude, Lancelot: Grammaire générale et raisonnée ou La Grammaire de Port-Royal. Édition critique présentée par Herbert E. Brekle. Nouvelle impression en facsimile de la troisème edition de 1676. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromann/Holzboog 1966, 2 vols.]

~~304~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Green, Robert, Rev. Mr. (1779). Short Abstract of English Grammar, Calculated for the Introduction of Young People of Both Sexes, into that Very Necessary, but ('till ofLate) Much Neglected Part of Education. By the Rev. Mr. R. Green. of Durham, And Particularly Designed for the Use of his Academy There. Newcastle: Printed by T. Angus, Trinity-Corner, St. Nicholas Church-Yard, for the Author; and Sold by W. Charnley, Newcastle; and N. Thorne, Durham. Greenwood, James (1711). An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar, Describing the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue. Giving likewise a Rational and Plain Account of Grammar in General, with a Familiar Explanation of its Terms. By James Greenwood. London: printed by R. Tookey, and are Sold by Samuel Keeble, John Lawrence, Jonah Bowyer, R. and I. Bonwick, and Rob. Halsey. ______. (1722 [1711]). An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar, Describing the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue. Giving Likewise a Rational and Plain Account of Grammar in General, with a Familiar Explanation of its Terms. By James Greenwood, Sur-Master of St. Paul’s- School. […]. The Second Edition with Additions. London: Printed for John Clark, at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry, near Cheapside. ______. (1729 [1711]). An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar, Describing the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue. Giving likewise a Rational and Plain Account of Grammar in General, with a Familiar Explanation of its Terms. By James Greenwood. The Third Edition with Additions. London: printed by R. Tookey, and are Sold by Samuel Keeble, John Lawrence, Jonah Bowyer, R. and I. Bonwick, and Rob. Halsey. ______. (1737). The Royal English Grammar, Containing what is Necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue. Laid Down in a Plain and Familiar Way. For the Use of Young Gentlemen and Ladys [sic]. By James Greenwood Sur-Master of St. Paul’s School. London; Printed for J. Nourse, at the Lamb, without Temple-Bar. ______. (1744 [1737]). The Royal English Grammar, Containing what is Necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue. Laid down in a Plain and Familiar Way. For the Use of Young Gentlemen and Ladies. To which are Added, Lessons for Boys at School, Shewing the Use of the Parts of

~~305~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Speech, and the Joining Words Together in a Sentence. By James Greenwood Sur- Master of St. Paul's School. The Second Edition. London. ______. (1750 [1737]). The Royal English Grammar, Containing What is necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue. Laid down in a plain and familiar Way. For the Use of young Gentlemen and Ladies. To which are added, Lessons for Boys at School, shewing the Use of the Parts of Speech, and the joining Words together in a Sentence. By James Greenwood Sur-Master of St. Paul's School. The Fourth Edition. London: Printed for J. Nourse, at the Lamb, over-against Katherine-street in the Strand. ______. (1753 [1711]). An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar, Describing the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue; Giving likewise a Rational and Plain Account of Grammar in General, with a Familiar Explanation of its Terms. By James Greenwood, Sur-Master of St. Paul’s-School. […]. The Fifth Edition. London: Printed for J. Nourse, at the Lamb, opposite Katherine-street in the Strand. ______. (1759 [1737]). The Royal English Grammar, Containing What is necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue. Laid down in a plain and familiar Way. For the Use of young Gentlemen and Ladies. To which are added, Lessons for Boys at School, shewing the Use of the Parts of Speech, and the joining Words together in a Sentence. By James Greenwood Sur-Master of St. Paul's School. The Sixth Edition. London: Printed for J. Nourse at the Lamb over-against Katherine- street in the Strand. ______. (1761 [1737]). The Royal English Grammar, Containing What is necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue. Laid down in a plain and familiar Way. For the Use of Young Gentlemen and Ladies. To which are added, Lessons for Boys at School, Shewing the Use of the Parts of Speech, and the joining Words together in a Sentence. By James Greenwood Sur-Master of St. Paul's School. The Sixth Edition. Corke: Printed by Eugene Swiney, near the Exchange. ______. (1763 [1737]). The Royal English Grammar, Containing what is necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue, Laid down in a plain and familiar Way. For the Use of young Gentlemen and Ladies. To which are added, Lessons for Boys at School, shewing the Use of the Parts of Speech, and the joining Words together in a Sentence. By James Greenwood Sur-Master of St. Paul's

~~306~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

School. The Seventh Edition. London: Printed for J. Nourse, opposite Katherine-street in the Strand, Bookseller in Ordinary to his Majesty. ______. (1770 [1737]). The Royal English Grammar, Containing What is necessary to the Knowledge of the English Tongue, Laid down in a plain and familiar Way. For the Use of young Gentlemen and Ladies. To which are added, Lessons for Boys at School, shewing the Use of the Parts of Speech, and the joining Words together in a Sentence. By James Greenwood Sur-Master of St. Paul's School. The Eighth Edition. London: Printed for J. Nourse, opposite Katherine-street in the Strand, Bookseller in Ordinary to his Majesty. Guardian, The (1714). Vol. I. London: Printed for J. Tonson, at Shakespear’s- Head over-against Catherine-street in the Strand. Guy, Joseph (J.G.) (1799 [1796]). An Easy Introduction to the English Language: With Various Rules and Examples for Correct Speaking, upon a New Plan: Designed for the Junior Classes in Schools. To which is Prefixed, a Sketch of Grammar, for Children under Seven Years Old. Second Edition, Revised and Corrected. Bristol: Printed by and for R. Edwards; and Sold by T. Hurst, Pater-Noster Row, London. Harland, S. (1714? [1719]). The English Spelling-Book, Revis'd; with Alterations and Additions. In Two Parts. Part I. Collected and Digested for the Weak Apprehensions of Children in their First Steps to Learning. Part II. Aims at a Farther Help, when their Capacities are Grown Stronger. And may Be of Use to Older People. By S. Harland, School-Master in Norwich. London: printed for W. Taylor, at the Ship in Pater-Noster- Row, and W. Chace, Bookseller in Norwich. Harris, James (1744). Three Treatises. The first concerning art. The second concerning music, painting and poltry. The third concerning happiness. By James Harris ESQ. The second edition revised and corrected. London: printed for John Novres and Paul Vaillant. ______. (1751). Hermes, or, A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Language and Universal Grammar. London. Harrison, Ralph (1777). Institutes of English Grammar; Comprizing I. The Different Kinds, Relations, and Changes of Words. II. Syntax, or the Right Construction of Sentences. With Exercises of True and False Construction.

~~307~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Adapted to the Use of Schools. By R. Harrison. Manchester: printed by Charles Wheeler. ______. (1794 [1777]). Institutes of English Grammar; Containing I. The Different Kinds, Relations, and Changes of Words. II. Syntax, or the Right Construction of Sentences. With an Appendix, Comprehending A Table of Verbs Irregularly Inflected; Remarks on some Grammatical Figures; Rules of Punctuation; a Praxis on the Grammar; and Examples of True and False Construction. By R. Harrison. The Sixth Edition, Revised and Enlarged. London: printed for J. Johnson, No. 72, St. Paul’s Church-Yard. ______. (1800 [1787]). Rudiments of English Grammar, Containing, I. The Different Kinds, Relations and Changes of Words. II. Syntax, or the Right Construction of Sentences: with an Appendix, Comprehending a Table of Verbs Irregularly Inflected. Remarks on some Grammatical Figures, Rules of Punctuation, a Praxis on the Grammar and Examples of True and False Construction. By Mr. Harrison. A New Edition, with Additions and Improvements by an Eminent Hand. Wilmington [Del.] Printed and Sold by James Wilson. Hart, John (1569). An orthographie conteyning the due order and reason, howe to write or paint thi-mage of mannes voice, most like to the life or nature. London: By [Henry Denham? for ] William Seres. Hewes, John (1621). A Perfect Survey of the English Tongue, Taken according to the Use and Analogie of the Latin. London: Edwards. R.C. Alston (ed.). English Linguistics 1500-1800. London: the Scholar Press (1972). Hodgson, Isaac, Rev. Mr. (1770). A Practical English Grammar, for the Use of Schools and Private Gentlemen and Ladies, with Exercises of False Orthography and Syntax at Large. By the Rev. Mr. Hodgson, Master of the Grammar School in Southampton. London: Printed for the Author. And Sold by B. Law, in Ave-Mary Lane, J. Linden, in Southampton, and all other Booksellers in Town and Country. ______. (1787 [1770]). A Practical English Grammar, for the Use of Schools, and Private Gentlemen and Ladies; with Exercises of False Orthography, and Syntax at Large. By the Late Rev. Mr. Hodgson, Master of the Grammar School, in Southampton. The Fifth Edition, with Improvements. London. Printed for B. Law, Avemary Lane. Hodson, Thomas (1800). The Accomplished Tutor; or, Complete System of Liberal Education: Containing the Most Improved Theory and Practice of the Following

~~308~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Subjects: 1. English Grammar and Elocution. [...] In Two Volumes. [...] By Thomas Hodson. Volume I. London: printed for the Author, by J. Bonsor, Salisbury Square; and Sold by Vernor and Hood, Poultry; Wright, Piccadilly; Sael, Strand; and Symonds, Paternoster Row. Hogarth, Richard (1689). Thesaurarium Trilingue Publicum: Being an Introduction to English, Latin and Greek. London: Printed by J.L. Hornsey, John (1793). A Short English Grammar in Two Parts: Simplified to theCapacities of Children: with Notes, and a Great Variety of Exercises upon a Plan Entirely New. To which are Added, Rules, Illustrated with Examples, For the Structure, Precision, and Unity of Sentences, by Way of Conclusion. Together with Tables of Initial, Significant Letters, and Usual Abbreviations. By John Hornsey, Schoolmaster, Scarborough, Author of the Tables, Entitled an ``Introduction to Arithmetic.''. […]. York: Printed for the Author by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman. […]. Huloet, Richard (1552). Abcedarium Anglico Latinum, pro Tyrunculis Richardo Huloeto Excriptore. London: William Riddel. Hume, David (1754). Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. By David Hume, Esq; Vol. IV. Containing Political Discourses. The Third Edition, with Additions and Corrections. London: Printed for A. Millar, in the Strand; And A. Kincaid and A. Donaldson, in Edinburgh. Ireland, J. (1784). Beauties in Prose and Verse: or, the New, Pleasing, and Entertaining Collection, Selected from the Most Eminent English Authors. To which is Added, a Practical English Grammar; or, an Easy Introduction to Speaking and Writing the English Language with Propriety and Elegance. By the Rev. J. Ireland, Curate of Tynemouth, and Master of a Grammar School, North Shields. Newcastle; Printed by T. Angus. Johnson, Samuel (1750-1752). The Rambler. London. ______. (1755). A Dictionary of the English language: in which the Words are Deduced from their Originals, and Illustrated in their Different Significations by Examples from the Best Writers. To which are Prefixed a History of the Language, and an English Grammar. By Samuel Johnson. In two volumes. London: W. Strahan for J. and P. Kanapton T. and T. Longman C. Hitch and L. Hawes A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley.

~~309~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1775). A Dictionary of the English language: in which the Words are Deduced from their Originals, and Illustrated in their Different Significations by Examples from the Best Writers. To which are Prefixed a History of the Language, and an English Grammar. By Samuel Johnson. In two volumes. The Fourth Edition, Revised by the Author [...]. Dublin: Printed for Thomas Ewing, in Capel-Street. Johnston, William M.A. (1772). A Short Grammar of the English Language; whereby a Stranger may Soon and Easily Acquaint Himself with its Principles, and Learn to Speak English Properly. By William Johnston, M. A. Author of the Pronouncing and Spelling Dictionary. To the New Edition of which, Now Published, this Grammar, and Other Considerable Improvements, are Added. London: Printed for W. Johnston, in Ludgate- Street. Jones, John (1701). Practical Phonography. London. Jones, Rowland (1771). The Circles of Gomer, or, an Essay towards an Investigation and Introduction of the English, as an Universal Language, upon the First Principles of Speech, according to its Hieroglyfic Signs, Argrafic, Archetypes, and Superior Pretensions to Originality; a Retrieval of Original Knowledge; and a Re-union of Nations and Opinions on the Like Principles, as well as the E[vi]dence of Ancient Writers; with an English Grammar, some Illustrations of the Subjects of the Author's Late Essays, and other Interesting Discoveries. By Row. Jones, Esq. London: sold by S.Crowder, in Pater-Noster Row; Richardson and Urquhart, at the Roal Exchange; P. Elmsley, in the Strand; and J. Almon, in Piccadilly. Jonson, Ben (1640-41). The Workes of Benjamin Jonson [2nd ed.]. London: [s.n]. Kenrick, William (1784). A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language wherein the Elements of Speech in General and those of the English Tongue in Particular are Analysed and the Rudiments of Articulation, Pronunciation, and Prosody Intelligibly Displayed. London: R. Cadell and W. Longman. Kirkby, John (1746). A New English Grammar [London. Reprinted in facs. by R. C. Alston (1974), EL 297]. Lewis of Tottenham, Mark (1675). Plain and Short Rules for Pointing Periods, and Reading Sentences Grammatically; with the Great Use of them. [S. l.: s. n.]. Lexicon Grammaticorum, Who’s Who in the History of World Linguistics. (1996). Gen. Ed.: Harro Stammerjohann. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lily, William (1945 [1527]). A Short Introduction of Grammar, facs. Ed. Vincent J. Flynn. New York.

~~310~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Literary Magazine, or, The History of the Works of the Learned. (1735-1737). London: Printed for T. Cooper. Loughton, William (1734). A Practical Grammar of the English Tongue: or, a Rational and Easy Introduction to Speaking and Writing English Correctly and Properly; Peculiarly Adapted to the Nature and Genius of the Language, and Free from the Hard and Unnecessary Terms of the Latin Rudiments. The Whole Treated of in Expressive Terms and Familiar Style, and in the Most Natural and Instructive Method, viz. That of Question and Answer. Design'd for the Use of Schools: And tho' Calculated Chiefly for such as Require Only an English Education, may yet be a Useful Foundation to Those who are Design'd for Higher Studies. By William Loughton, School-Master, at Kensington. London: Printed for Caesar Ward and Richard Chandler, at the Ship between the Temple Gates in FleetStreet, and Sold at their Shop at Scarbrough. ______. (1749 [1734]). A Practical Grammar of the English Tongue: Or, a Rational and Easy Introduction to Speaking and Writing English Correctly and Properly. The Seventh Edition, with Corrections and Improvements. London: printed for B. Dod at the Bible and Key in Ave-Mary-Lane near Stationers-Hall. Lowe, Solomon (1737). English Grammar Reformd into a Small Compass and Easy Method for the Readier Learning and Better Understanding of the English Tongue by Way of Introduction to Other Languages. [London]. Lowth, Robert (1762). A Short Introduction to English Grammar: with Critical Notes. London: printed by J. Hughs; for A. Millar in the Strand; and R. & J. Dodsley in Pall-mall. Lye, Thomas (1671). The Childs Delight. London: Printed for S. Simmons for Tho. Parkhurst. M. A. (1785). The Elementary Principles of English Grammar, Collected from Various Authors; but chiefly from Dr. Priestley, and Printed for Private Use. Bridport: Printed by S. Margrie, Stationer; and Bookseller. Mackintosh, Duncan (1797). A Plain Rational Essay on English Grammar: the Main Object of which is to Point out a Plain, Rational and Permanent Standard of Pronunciation. To which is given, a Gamut or Key, still more Simple, Plain and Easy than that given to Music, Pointing out the Quantity

~~311~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

and Quality of every Syllable and Word, according to the Present Mode among Polite Scholars. […] Boston: Printed by Manning and Loring. Maittaire, Michael (1712). The English Grammar: or, an Essay on the Art of Grammar, Applied to and Exemplified in the English Tongue. By Michael Maittaire. London: printed by W.B. for H. Clements at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard. Mandeville, Bernard (1723). The Fable of the Bees: Or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits. The Second Edition, Enlarged with many Additions. As Also An Essay on Charity and Charity-Schools. And a Search into The Nature of Society. London: Printed for Edmund Parker at the Bible and Crown in Lombard-Street. Manutius, Aldus (1905 [1566]). “Interpungendi ratio”. In: Orthographie Ratio, Venice, trans. T. F. And M. F. A. Husband, in Punctuation: its Principles and Practices, Appendix B: 130-136. London [First edition Venice, 1561]. Martin, Benjamin (1754). An Introduction to the English Language and Learning. In Three Parts. By Benjamin Martin. London: printed for W. Owen, at Homer's Head, in Fleet-Street. Mason, John (1748). An Essay on Elocution, or Pronunciation. Intended Chiefly for the Assistance of those who Instruct Others in the Art of Reading. And of those who are Often Called to Speak in Publick. By John Mason, A.M. The Second Edition. London: Printed for R. Hett, at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry; J. Buckland, at the Buck in Pater-noster Row; J. Waugh, at the Turk’s Head in Gracechurch-Street; and M. Cooper, at the Globe in Pater-Noster Row. [Price Six-Pence.]. McGowan, William (1773). Introduction to the English Tongue. In Three Parts. By William Mc.Gowan. Master of the English Academy, Chancery Lane. Dublin: printed by Richard Fitzsimons, at the King's Head, in High-Street. Meikleham, William (1781). A Comprehensive Grammar: in which the Principles of the English Language are Methodically Digested into Plain, and Easy Rules. With Notes, and Observations, Explaining the Terms Grammar, and Improving its Use. Glasgow: printed and Sold by J. & J. Robertson, and J. Duncan, Booksellers. ______. (1795 [1781]). A Comprehensive Grammar: in which the Principles of the English Language are Methodically Digested into Plain, and Easy Rules: Illustrated by Exercises of True and False Syntax. With Notes, and Observations, Explaining the Terms Grammar, and Improving its Use. The Fourth Edition.

~~312~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

These Rules of Old Discover’d, not Devis’d Are Nature Still, but Nature Methodiz’d. Pope. Glasgow: printed by J. & M. Robertson. ______. (1797 [1781]). A Compendious Grammar: in which the principles of the English Language are Methodically digested into Plain and Easy Rules: illustrated by Exercises of True and False Syntax. With Notes, and Observations, explaining the Terms of Grammar, and improving its Use. By William Mcllquham. The Fifth Edition. These Rules of Old Discover’d, not devis’d, are nature still, but nature methodiz’d. Pope. Glasgow, Printed by J. and M. Robertson. Menander. (1921). The Principal Fragments with an English Translation by Francis G. Allinson. Professor of Greek Literature and History in Brown University. London: William Heinemann. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Mennye, J. (1785). An English Grammar; Being a Compilation from the Works of such Grammarians as have Acquired the Approbation of the Public; Better Adapted, both to the Ease of the Master, and the Benefit of the Scholar, than Most other Treatises on that Subject: To which are Added, Observations, Explanatory and Critical; as also, a Short, but Complete System of Elocution, Rendered Plain to the Meanest Capacity; and the Whole Exemplified by Orations and Harangues. By J. Mennye, Teacher of the Mathematics, New-York. New-York: printed and Sold by S. Loudon, no. 5, Water-Street, and R. Hodge, no. 38., Maiden-Lane. Mercy, Blanch (1799). A Short Introduction to English Grammar. In Two Separate Volumes […] Designed for the Use of Young Ladies. London: For the Authoress. ______. (1801). A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Vol. II. Or Instructress’s Book: Designed for the Use of Ladies Who Wish to Acquire a Method of Teaching. Second edition. Carlisle: Printed by F. Jollie, for C. Law, London. Metcalfe, Lister (1771). The Rudiments of the English Tongue; or, the Principles of English Grammar, Methodically Digested into Plain Rules, and Adapted to the Capacities of Children: after the Plan of Mr Ruddiman's Latin Rudiments. The second edition, revised, corrected, and improved, by

~~313~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

L. Metcalfe, curate at Middleham, in the county of York. Newcastle: printed by T. Saint, for J. Wilkie, London. ______. (1777 [1771?]). The Rudiments of the English Tongue; or, the Principles of English Grammar, Methodically Digested into Plain Rules, and Adapted to the Capacities of Young People. To which are Added, Exercises on a Most Useful New Plan, to be Rectified by the Rules of Grammar: I. Copious Exercises of False Spelling. II. On the Declension of Nouns. III. On the Conjugation of Active and Passive Verbs. IV. On Construction. V. The Method of Turning Poetry into Prose. VI. Parsing Examples, with References to the Rules of Construction. With Proper Directions and Address from Inferiors to Persons of Distinction; and Also a Table of Abbreviations Explained, &c. The Third Edition, Carefully Revised, Corrected and Much Improved, by the Rev. Lister Metcalfe, Curate of Muker, Swaledale, in the County of York. Newcastle upon Tyne: Printed byT. Saint; and Sold by T. Wilson, In York. Miller, Alexander (1795). A Concise Grammar of the English Language. With an Appendix Chiefly Extracted from Dr. Lowth's Critical Notes. By Alexander Miller, A.M. New-York: Printed by T. and J. Swords, No. 99 Pearl Street. Milton, John (1667). Paradise Lost . A Poem Written in Ten Books. By John Milton. Licensed and Entred according to Order. London: Printed, and are to be Sold by Peter Parker under Creed Church neer Aldgate; And by Robert Boulter at the Turks Head in Bishopgate-street; And Matthias Walker, under St. Dunstons Church in Fleet-street. Monteith, Robert M.A. (1704). The True and Genuine Art, of Exact Pointing. Edinburgh, Printed by John Reid Junior. Monthly Review, The; or, Literary Journal: From July to December, inclusive. (1781). By Several Hands. Volume 65. London: Printed for R. Griffiths: And Sold by T. Becket, Corner of the Adelphi, Strand. Mrs. Eves (1800). The Grammatical Play-Thing, Or, Winter Evening’s Recreation, for Young Ladies Four to Twelve Years Old. Birmingham: Printed [by] T. A. Pearson; London: Sold by John Marshall and L. B. Seeley. Mulcaster, Richard (1582). The First Part of the Elementarie. London. Murray, James (1771). The Rudiments of the English Tongue: or, The principles of English grammar, methodologically digested into plain rules, adapted to the use of schools. To which is subjoined, Grammatical exercises upon the parts of

~~314~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

speech, and the whole of English syntax, on a plan entirely new. The second edition. By the Rev. Ja. Murray, of Newcastle. Newcastle: printed for the author. Murray, Lindley (1795). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations for Promoting Perspicuity in Speaking and Writing. By L. Murray. York: printed and Sold by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman. ______. (1796 [1795]). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations, for Assisting the More Advanced Students to Write with Perspicuity and Accuracy, designed for the instruction. By Lindley Murray. The Second Edition, with improvements. York: printed and sold by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman: sold also by Darton and Harvey, No. 55, GraceChurch- Street, London. ______. (1797a [1795]). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations, for Assisting the More Advanced Students to Write with Perspicuity and Accuracy. By Lindley Murray. The Third Edition, improved. York: printed and sold by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman: sold also by Darton and Harvey, No. 55, GraceChurch-Street, London. […]. ______. (1797b). An Abridgment of L. Murray's English Grammar. With an Appendix, Containing an Exemplification of the Parts of Speech. Designed for the Use of the Younger Class of Learners. By Lindley Murray. York: printed and Sold by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman: Sold also by Darton and Harvey, No. 55, Grace-Church-Street, London. ______. (1798b [1797]). An Abridgment of L. Murray's English Grammar. With an Appendix, Containing an Exemplification of the Parts of Speech, and Exercises in Syntax. Designed for the Use of the Younger Class of Learners. By Lindley Murray. The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. London: Printed for Darton and Harvey, Gracechurchstreet; C. Law, Ave-Maria-Lane; and T. N. Longman, Paternoster-row. ______. (1798a [1795]). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations for Assisting the More Advanced Students to Write with Perspicuity and

~~315~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Accuracy. By Lindley Murray. The Fourth Edition, Corrected and Improved. York: printed and Sold by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman: Sold also by Darton and Harvey, No. 55, Grace-Church-Street, London. ______. (1799a [1795]). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations for Promoting Perspicuity in Speaking and Writing. By L. Murray. The Fifth Edition, Improved. York: printed and Sold by Wilson, Spence, and Mawman. ______. (1799b [1797]). An Abridgment of L. Murray's English Grammar. With an Appendix, Containing an Exemplification of the Parts of Speech, and Exercises in Syntax. Designed for the Use of the Younger Class of Learners. By Lindley Murray. The Third Edition, Corrected. London: Printed for Darton and Harvey, Gracechurch-street; C. Law, Ave-Maria-Lane; and Longman and Rees, Paternoster-row. ______. (1800 [1797]). An Abridgment of L. Murray's English Grammar. With an Appendix, Containing an Exemplification of the Parts of Speech, and Exercises in Syntax. Designed for the Use of the Younger Class of Learners. By Lindley Murray. The Fourth Edition. London: Printed by and for Darton and Harvey, Gracechurch-street; C. Law, Ave-Maria-Lane; and Longman and Rees, Paternoster-row. ______. (1826). Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Lindley Murray: In a series of Letters, Written by Himself. With a Preface and a Continuation of the Memoirs, by Elizabeth Frank. York: Thomas Wilson and Sons; London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green; Harvey and Darton. Newbery, John (1745). An Easy Introduction to the English Language; or, a Compendious Grammar for the Use of Young Gentlemen, Ladies, and Foreigners. Being the Second Volume of The Circle of the Sciences, &c. By the King's Authority. London: printed for J. Newbery, at the Bible and Sun, in St. Paul's Church-Yard. Pape Daniel (1790). A Key to English Grammar, by which it has been Proved, by Experience, that a Boy, with a Tolerable Capacity, and of Ten Years of Age Only, may, in a few Months, be Taught to Write the English Language Properly and Correctly, though Totally Unacquainted with the Latin or Greek Languages. By the Rev. Daniel Pape, Morpeth. N.B. This Book is Humbly Recommended by the Author to Schoolmasters, who have no Knowledge of the Languages: it may also

~~316~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

be found of some Use to Gentlemen, who have not had a Liberal Education. Newcastle: printed by Hall and Elliot. Penholder? (1896). Saxon’s Everybody’s Letter Writer. London: W.R. Russell & Co. Perry, William (1775). The Royal Standard English Dictionary, [...] To which is Prefixed a Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Edinburgh: printed for the Author, by David Willison; and sold by J. Wilkie, T. Evans, and J. Murray London; J. Bell, W. Creech, J. Dickson, C. Elliot, R. Jamieson, Edinburgh; Charnley, Newcastle; Etherington, York; Norton, Bristol; Frederick, Bath; and by the Author. Pope, Alexander (1711). An Essay on Criticism. Si quid Novisti Rectius istis, Candidus Imperti; si non, his Utere Mecum. HORAT. London: Printed for W. Lewis in Russel-Street, Covent-Garden. ______. (1733). An Essay on Man. Address'd to a Friend. Part I. Dublin: Printed by S. Powell, for George Risk at the Shakespear’s Head, George Ewing at the Angel and Bible, and William Smith at the Hercules, Booksellers in Dame-Street. ______. (1733). An Essay on Man. In Epistles to a Friend. Epistle II. London: Printed. Dublin: Re-printed, by and for George Faulkner, in Essex-Street, opposite to the Bridge. ______. (1733). An Essay on Man. In Epistles to a Friend. Epistle III. London: Printed for J. Wilford, at the Three Flower-de-Luces, behind the Chapter- House, St. Paul’s. [Price One Shilling.] ______. (1734). An Essay on Man. In Epistles to a Friend. Epistle IV. London: Printed. And Re-printed in Dublin, by Georgeg Faulkner, in Essex-Street, opposite to the Bridge. ______. (1737). The Second Epistle of the Second Book of Horace, Imitated by Mr. Pope. […]. Dublin: Printed by and for Sylvanus Pepyat, Bookseller in Skinner-Row. Postlethwaite, Richard (1795). The Grammatical Art Improved: in which the Errors of Grammarians and Lexicographers are Exposed; Twelve Tenses are Explained; and, for the Exercise of Learners, such an Appendix is Added, as Contains an Explanation of many Particulars Needful to be Known: by the Rev. Richard Postlethwaite, Rector of Newendon, in

~~317~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Essex. London: printed for J. Parsons, no. 21, Paternoster-Row; and Sold also by R.C. Stanes, Chelmsford. Priestley, Joseph (1761). The Rudiments of English Grammar; Adapted to the Use of Schools. With Observations on Style. By Joseph Priestley. London: printed for R. Griffiths, in the Strand. ______. (1768). An Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life. With Plans of Lectures on I. The Study of History and general Policy. II. The History of England. III. The Constitution and Laws of England. By Jos. Priestley, L.L.D.F.R.S. London: Printed for J. Johnson, [No. 8.] in Pater-noster-Row. Quintilian. (1856). Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory; Or, Education of an Orator. J. S. Watson. London: G. Bell and Sons. Raine, Matthew (1771). English Rudiments, or an Easy Introduction to English Grammar for the Use of Schools by the Rev. Matthew Raine Vicar of St John's Stanwick, and Masterof the Free Grammar School at Hartforth. “The True Method of Promoting Science, is to Communicate it, with Clearness and Precision and in a Language as Much Divested of Technical Terms, as the Nature of the Subject will Admit” Comparative View &c. Darlington: Printed and Sold by John Sadler. Rhodes, Benjamin (1795). A Concise English Grammar, Rendered Easy to Every Capacity, so that (Without any Other Help) a Person may Acquire the Knowledge of the English Language. To Perfect the Learner, there are Many Exercises of Good and Bad English, Annexed to Every Rule of Syntax; also, Punctuation, and a Help to Reading, Speaking, and Composing; with Many Examples of Composition, on Interesting Subjects, Expressive of the True Sublime; Extracted from the Best English Authors. To which are Added, a Short Compendium of Logic and Rhetoric, and a Sketch of the Constitution of England. By Benjamin Rhodes. Birmingham, printed by J. Belcher. Richards, William (1743). The Young Man's New Companion, or Youth's General Director, Containing, I. A Compendious English Grammar, with the Definition and Etymology of All the Terms, Made Use of in that Science. [...] The Whole Compiled for General Use in a Plain and Familiar Style. By W. Richards, Accomptant. London: printed for B. Cole Engraver, the Corner of King's Head- Court, in Holborn; and T. Harris, at the Looking-Glass and Bible, on London- Bridge.

~~318~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Robertson, Joseph (1785). An Essay on Punctuation. […]. London, Printed for J. Walter, Charing-Cross. ______. (1786). An Essay on Punctuation. The Second Edition. […]. London, Printed for J. Walter, Charing-Cross. ______. (1789). An Essay on Punctuation. […]. Philadelphia: Printed by Joseph James. ______. (1791). An Essay on Punctuation. The Third Edition, Corrected and Improved. […]. London, Printed for J. Walter, Charing-Cross. ______. (1796). An Essay on Punctuation. The Fourth Edition, Corrected and Improved. […]. London, Printed for J. Walter, Charing-Cross. ______. (1808). An Essay on Punctuation. The Fifth Edition, Corrected and Improved. London. Scots Magazine, The. Volume 24. Ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne quid very non audeat. (1762). Edinburgh: Printed by W. Sands, A. Murray, and J. Cochran. Seally, John (1788). The Lady’s Encyclopedia: or, a Concise Analysis of the Belles Lettres, the Fine Arts, and the Sciences. Vol. 2. London. Shakespeare, William (1623). Mr. VVilliam Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies Published according to the True Originall Copies. London: Printed by Isaac Iaggard, and Ed. Blount. Shaw, John (1778). A Methodical English Grammar: Containing Rules and Directions for Speaking and Writing the English Language with Propriety: Illustrated by a Variety of Examples and Exercises. For the Use of Schools. Price Two Shillings. By the Rev. John Shaw, Head-Master of the Free Grammar School, at Rochdale, in Lancashire. London: Printed for the Author: and Sold by Richardson and Urquhart, Near the Royal Exchange; and by J. Prescott, in Manchester. ______. (1785 [1778]). A Methodical English Grammar: Containing Rules and Directions for Speaking and Writing the English Language with Propriety and Accuracy: Illustrated by a Variety of Examples and Exercises. For the Use of Schools . Price Two Shillings and Six-Pence. By the Rev. John Shaw, Head-Master […]. The Second Edition, Carefully Revised, Corrected and Improved. London: Printed for J. Richardson […].

~~319~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1793 [1778]). A Methodical English Grammar: Contaning Rules and Directions for Speaking and Writing the English Language with Propriety and Accuracy. Illustrated by a Variety of Examples and Exercises. For the Use of Schools. To which is Subjoined, an Epitome of Rhetoric. By the Rev.John Shaw. The Fourth Edition, carefully revised, corrected, improved. London: printed for W. Richardson, under the Royal-Exchange; and J. Prescott, Manchester. Sheridan, Thomas (1762). A Course of Lectures on Elocution: Together with Two Dissertations on Language; and Some Other Tracts Telative to those Subjects. By Thomas Sheridan, A.M. London: Printed by W. Strahan, For A. Millar, R. and J. Dodsley, T. Davies, C. Henderson, J. Wilkie, and E. Dilly. ______. (1780). A General Dictionary of the English Language. One main Object of which, is, to establish a plain and permanent Standard of Pronunciation. To which is prefixed a Rhetorical Grammar. by Thomas Sheridan, A.M. […]. London: Printed for J. Dodsley, Pall-Mall; C. Dilly, in the Poultry; and J. Wilkie, St. Paul’s Church-Yard. ______. (1781). A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language. Calculated Solely for the Purposes of Teaching Propriety of Pronunciation, and Justness of Delivery, in that Tongue, by the Organs of Speech. By Thomas Sheridan, A.M. Dublin: Printed for Messrs. Price, W. and H. Whitestone, Sleater, Sheppard, G. Burnet, R. Cross, Flin, Stewart, Mills, Wilkinson, Exshaw, Perrin, Byrne. Smetham, Thomas (1774). The Practical Grammar; or, an Easy Way to Understand English. In which The Rules are Laid Down in a Manner Entirely New; and the Whole Rendered so Easy, Familiar, and Entertaining, that a Child of Only Eight Years of Age may be Perfectly Initiated into a Knowledge of the English Tongue, with the Greatest Expedition and Pleasure. [...] By Thomas Smetham, Master of the Academy at Southgate, and late Master of the Boarding School at Ponder's End. […]. London: Printed for J. Cooke, at Shakespear’s Head, in Pater-Noster Row; and Sold by All Other Booksellers in Great Britain and Ireland. (Price 1 s. 6d. bound.). Spectator, The (1713). Vol. I. The Second Edition. London: Printed for S. Buckley, at the Dolphin in Little-Britain; and J. Tonson, at Shakespear’s- Head over-against Catherine-street in the Strand.

~~320~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1713). Vol. II. The Second Edition. London: Printed for S. Buckley, at the Dolphin in Little-Britain; and J. Tonson, at Shakespear’s-Head over- against Catherine-street in the Strand. ______. (1717). Vol. VIII. and Last. The Second Edition. London: Printed for J. Tonson, at Shakespear’s-Head, over against Katharine-street in the Strand. ______. (1718). Vol. V. The Fourth Edition. London: Printed for J. Tonson, at Shakespear’s-Head, over against Katharine-street in the Strand. Stackhouse, Thomas (1800). A new essay on punctuation: Being an attempt to reduce the practice of pointing to the government of distinct and explicit rules by which every point may be accounted for after the manner of parsing. London: T. Bensley. Stapleton, George (1797). The Road to Knowledge; or Young Man and Woman's Best Friend: Being a Plan of General Instruction, as far as Relates to the Useful Pursuits and Purposes of Life. Consisting of a Concise, yet Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. [...] Calculated for Both Sexes. [...] By George Stapleton, Late English Preceptor at Paris and at Brussels. London: printed by J. Adlard, Duke Street, West Smithfield, and Sold by W. Trepass, George Street, Foster Lane, Cheapside. Steel, David (1786). Elements of Punctuation: containing remarks on an “Essay on Punctuation;” and critical observations on some passages in Milton. London: printed for the author; and sold by Mess. G. G. J. and J. Robinson, Pater-Noster Row; Mr. Walter, Charing-Cross; Mr. Debrett, Picadilly; Mr. Whieldon, Fleet-Street; and Mess. Steel and Son, Union- Row, Tower-Hill. Steele, Joshua (1775). An Essay towards Establishing the Melody and Measure of Speech. London. Steele, Richard Sir. (1782). Youth's Preceptor, Containing a Grammar of the English Tongue; A Treatise on the Art of Poetry. Rhetoric, or the Art of Persuasion. Logic, or the Art of Reasoning. Tables for Various Useful Calculations. Illustrated with Several Plates, Containing Thirteen Alphabets Used in Writing and Printing. The Whole Forming a Complete System of an English Education. A New Edition Compiled for the Use of

~~321~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Schools. By Sir Richard Steele. London: Printed for M. Smith and W. Davies. Sterne, Laurence (1759-1767). The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. […]. London. ______. (1760). The Sermons of Mr. Yorick. Vol. II. Dublin: Printed for G. Faulkner, P. Wilson, H. Bradley, and W. Smith, jun. Booksellers. Stirling, John (1735). A Short View of English Grammar. In a Method Intirely New. [...] For the Use of Schools. By John Stirling, M. A. And Master of St. Andrew's School, Holbourn. London: Printed for the Author. Story, Joshua (1783 [1778]). An Introduction to English Grammar; to which is Annexed a Treatise on Rhetorick. By Joshua Story. The Third Edition with Additions. Newcastle upon Tyne: printed for T. Angus, for T. Longman and T. Evans, Pater- Noster Row, London; and W. Charnley, Groat-Market, Newcastle. Swift, Jonathan (1712). A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Language. Menston: The Scholar Press, 1969. ______. (1793 [1778]). An Introduction to English Grammar; to which is Annexed A Treatise on Rhetorick. […] By Joshua Story. The Fifth Edition with Additions. London: Printed for T. Longman and T. Evans, Paternoster-Row. Tatler, The (1709 [1711]). By Isaac Bickerstaff Esq; Vol. 1. […]. London, Printed: And Sold by John Morphew, near Stationers-Hall. The Bible in Englyshe [sic]. (1539). [...] London: Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch. The Byble in English that is to say, the contente of all the holy scripture, bothe the olde and new Testament by Nicolas Hill & Steven Mierdman. (1553). London. The Guardian. A Corrected Edition (1806): With a Preface Historical and Biographical, by Alexander Chalmers, A.M. In Two Volumes. Vol. I. London: Printed by Luke Hansard, near Lincoln’s-Inn Fields. For J. Jonson, W. J. and J. Richardson, J. Nichols and Son, R. Baldwin, F. and C. Rivington, T. Payne, Otridge and Son, J. Walker, Scatchard and Letterman, Wilkie and Robinson, Ogilvy and Son, W. Lowndes, J. Nunn, Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, C. Law, Vernor, Hood, & Sharpe, Cadell & Davies, B. Crosby & Co. S. Bagster, J. Mawman, and J. Booker. The Holy Bible [Authorized King James Version] (1611). Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New/Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues, and with the former Translations Diligently Compared and Reuised, by His Maiesties Speciall

~~322~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Comandement ; Appointed to be Read in Churches. Imprinted at London: by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings Most Excellent Maiestie. ______. (online) http://www. kingjamesbibleonline.org The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faithful exemplars by Richard Taverner. [...] (1539). London [...]. Thomson, James (1761). The Seasons. By James Thomson. Edinburgh: Printed by A. Donaldson and J. Reid. For A. Donaldson. Tyndale, William (1989 [1534]). Tyndale’s New Testament. A modern-spelling edition of the 1534 translation with an introduction by David Daniell. London: Yale University Press. Turner, Daniel (1739). An Abstract of English Grammar and Rhetoric: Containing the Chief Principles and Rules of Both Arts, Necessary to the Writing the Language Correctly and Handsomely. In a New, Easy, and Distinct Method. Designed to Introduce the English Scholar to a Just Notion of the Propriety, and Beauty, of his Mother Tongue. By Daniel Turner. […]. London: Printed for R. Hett, at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry; and for D. Turner, at Hempsted in Hertfordshire. ______. (1741). An Abstract of English Grammar and Rhetoric: Containing the Chief Principles and Rules of both Arts, necessary to the Writing the Language Correctly and Handsomely. In a New, Easy, and Distinct Method. Designed to Introduce the English Scholar to a just Notion of the Propriety, and Beauty, of his Mother Tongue. By Daniel Turner. […]. Dublin: Printed for S. Powell, For George Risk, at Shakespear’s-Head in Dame’s street. Ussher, G. Neville (1785). The Elements of English Grammar, Methodically Arranged for the Use of those who Study English Grammatically without a Previous Knowledge of the Learned Languages: And Illustrated by Rules and Lessons of Parsig Adapted to the Capacities of Young Beginners. Designed Particularly for the Use of Ladies’ Boarding Schools. […] Glocester: Printed by R. Rapkes, Sold by T. Evans, Pater-Noster-Row, London; and by Evans and Hazell, Glocester.

~~323~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Walker, John (1781). Elements of Elocution. Being the Substance of a Course of Lectures on the Art of Reading; Delivered at Several Colleges in the University of Oxford. In Two Volumes. Vol. I. By J. Walker, Author of the Rhyming and Pronouncing Dictionary, &c. &c. […]. London, Printed for the Author; And Sold by T. Cadell, in the Strand; T. Becket, Corner of the Adelphi; G. Robinson, Paternoster-Row; and J. Dodsley, Pall-Mall. ______. (1785). A Rhetorical Grammar, or Course of Lessons in Elocution. London. ______. (1791). A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. In which Not only the Meaning of every Word is clearly explained, and the Sound of every Syllable distinctly shown, but where Words are subject to different Pronunciations, the Reasons for each are at large displayed, and the preferable Pronunciation is pointed out. To which are prefixed, Principles of English Pronunciation […]. By John Walker, Author of Elements of Elocution, Rhyming Dictionary, Melody of Speaking Delineated, &c. &c. […]. London: Sold by G.G. J. and J. Robinson, Paternoster Row; and T. Cadell, in the Strand. Wallis, John (1653). Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae. Oxford: Wallis. Ward, William (1765). An Essay on Grammar, as it may be applied to the English Language. London: Robert Horsfield. R.C. Alston (ed.). English Linguistics 1500-1800. London: the Scholar Press (1972). ______. (1766). A Practical Grammar of the English Language, Containing Accurate Definitions of the Several Parts of Speech, also Rules and Directions which Extend to Every Part of the Language; with a Praxis, Shewing How the Rules are to Be Applied in the Resolution of Sentences. By William Ward; M.A. Master of the Grammar-School at Beverley in the County of York. York: printed by A. Ward, for C. Etherington; and Sold in London by Stanley Crowder, in Pater- noster-Row; William Nicoll, in St. Paul's Church Yard; and William Charnley, at Newcastle upon Tyne. ______. (1767). A Grammar of the English Language, In Two Treatises. The First, containing Rules for every Part of its Construction; With a Praxis both of True and False English, Shewing how the Rules are to be applied in resolving the True, and in rectifying the False. The Second, shewing the Nature of the several Parts of Speech, and the Reasons of every Part of Construction. By William Ward, M.A. Master of the Grammar-School at Beverley, in the County of York. [...]. York:

~~324~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

printed by A. Ward, for C. Etherington; Bookseller, opposite the North Door of All-Hallows Church in the Pavement. Ward, H. (1777). A Short but Clear System of English Grammar, with Exercises of Bad English, Designed for the Use of Schools, and for those Gentlemen and Ladies who may Want the Assistance of a Master. By H. Ward; School-Master in Whitehaven. With an Appendix, Containing I. An Exmaple of Grammatical Resolution. II. General Instructions for Reading and Speaking our Mother-Tongue, with Elegance, Propriety, and a Good Grace. III. A Pronouncing Dictionary. IV. A Table of Abbreviations. V. An Alphabetical Introduction to the Proper Choice of Words; wherein the Difference between those Esteemed Synonymous is Pointed out. Whitehaven: Printed in the Year, M,DCC,LXXVII. Watts, Isaac (1721). The Art of Reading and Writing English. London. Webster, Noah (1784). A Grammatical Institute, of the English Language, Comprising, an Easy, Concise, and Systematic Method of Education, Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part II. Containing, a Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the True Principles and Idioms of the Language; with an Analytical Dissertation, in which the Various Uses of the Auxiliary Signs are Unfolded and Explained: and an Essay towards Investigating the Rules of English Verse. By Noah Webster, Jun. Esq. Hartford: printed by Hudson & Goodwin, for the Author. Under Protection of the Statute. ______. (1785 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; comprising, an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of Schools in America. In Three Parts. Hartford: printed by Barlow& Babcock. For the Author. ______. (1787 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; comprising, an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part II. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the True Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. The Third Edition, Revised and Amended. Philadelphia: printed and Sold by Young and M’culloch, the Corner of Chesnut and Second-Streets.

~~325~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1787? [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; comprising An easy, concise and systematic Method of Education, designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part II; Containing A plain and comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. The Fourth Edition, revised and amended. Hartford: Printed and Sold by Hudson and Goodwin, (With the Privilege of Copy- right for the New-England States.). ______. (1790 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising, an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second.Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the True Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. Thomas and Andrews’s First Edition. With many corrections and improvements, by the Author. Printed at Boston, by Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbery Street. Sold, Wholesale and Retail, at their Bookstore; by said Thomas at his Bookstore in Worcester, and by the Booksellers in Town and Country. ______. (1792 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; comprising An Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education, Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. The Third Connecticut Edition. Printed at Hartford: by Hudson and Goodwin. ______. (1792 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising, an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the True Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. Thomas and Andrews’s Second Edition. With many corrections and improvements, by the Author. Printed at Boston, by Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbery Street. Sold, Wholesale and Retail, at their

~~326~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Bookstore; by said Thomas at his Bookstore in Worcester, and by the Booksellers in Town and Country. ______. (1794 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising, an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the True Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. Thomas and Andrews’s Third Edition. With many corrections and improvements, by the Author. Printed at Boston, by Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbery Street. Sold, Wholesale and Retail, at their Bookstore; by said Thomas at his Bookstore in Worcester, and by the Booksellers in Town and Country. ______. (1796 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, Comprising an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second: Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, Jun. Esquire, Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. Albany: Printed by Charles R. & George Webster, and Sold at their Bookstore, in the White House, corner of State and Pearl streets. […]. ______. (1796 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising An Esy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education, Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second. Containing A Plain and Cmprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. The Fifth onnecticut Edition. Hartford: Printed by Hudson and Goodwin. ______. (1797 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising, an Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part

~~327~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Second. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esq. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. Thomas and Andrews’s Fifth Edition. With many corrections and improvements, by the Author. Printed at Boston, by Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbery Street. Sold, Wholesale and Retail, at their Bookstore; by said Thomas, at his Bookstore in Worcester; by Thomas, Andrews & Peniman, in Albany; and by Thomas, Andrews & Butler, in Baltimore. […]. ______. (1798 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising An Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, Jun. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language” “Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings, &c.” New-York: Printed by Robert Wilson. For Evert Duyckinck, & Co. Booksellers and Stationers. ______. (1800 [1784]). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language; Comprising An Easy, Concise and Systematic Method of Education. Designed for the Use of English Schools in America. In Three Parts. Part Second. Containing A Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, Grounded on the true Principles and Idioms of the Language. By Noah Webster, jun. Esquire. Author of “Dissertations on the English Language,”“Collection of Essays and Fugitive Writings,” &c. The Sixth Connecticut Edition. Hartford: Printed by Hudson and Goodwin. Whythorne, Thomas (1961). The Autobiography of Thomas Whythorne. Edited by James M. Osborn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wilkins, John (1668). An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language. London [EL 119]. Wilson, George (1769 [1756?]). The Youth’s Pocket-Companion: or, Universal Preceptor. Containing what is Absolutely Necessary for Every Young Man to Know and Practice, under the Following Heads, viz. [...] By George Wilson, Teacher at an Academy in London. Embrace Instittuion, Hold her Fast, Her Treasures will for Ever Last. London: printed for J. Cooke, at Shakespear’s-Head, Pater-Noster-Row. Price One Shilling.

~~328~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Wilson, J. (1792). Fisher's Grammar Improved; or an English Grammar in which Fisher's Plan is Preserved, and the Work Made More Perfect by Various Amendments; in Orthography and Prosody from Sheridan and others; and in Etymology and Syntax Principally from Lowth. By the Rev. J. Wilson, Vicar of Biddulph, Master of the Free Grammar School in Congleton. Congleton: printed for the Editor, by J. Dean. And Sold by T. Vernor, Birchin Lane, London. J. Binns, Leeds; W. Pennington, Kendal; J. Ware, Whitehaven; and by the Booksellers in General. ______. (1797). Fisher's Grammar Improved; or an English Grammar in which Fisher's Plan is Preserved, and the Work Made More Perfect by Various Amendments; in Orthography and Prosody from Walker, Sheridan, and others; and in Etymology and Syntax Principally from Lowth. The Second Edition, Much Improved. By the Rev. J. Wilson, Vicar of Biddulph, and Master of the Free Grammar School in Congleton. Congleton: Printed for the Editor, by J. Dean. And Sold by G.. Sael, Strand; Champante and Whitrow, Minories, London; Wilson, Spence, and Mawman, York; Binns, Leeds; Pennington, Kendal; Ware, Whitehaven; and by the Booksellers in General. [...]. Wilson, Thomas (1551). The Rule of Reason, Conteinyng the Arte of Logique. London. Wilson, Thomas (1724). The Many Advantages of a Good Language to any Nation: with an Examination of the Present State of our Own; as also, an Essay towards Correcting some Things that are Wrong in it. London: printed for J. Knapton, R. Knaplock, J. Sprint, D. Midwinter, R. Robinson, W. Innys, and J. Osborne. Wise, Thomas (1754). The Newest Young Man's Companion, Containing, a Compendious English Grammar. Instructions to Write Variety of Hands, [...] Letters on Compliment, Business, [...] Forms of Indentures, Bonds, Wills, Testaments, [...] The Art of Painting [...] and an English Spelling Dictionary. The Whole Calculated to Qualify Persons for Business, without a Master, and Illustrated with a Map of the World. By Thomas Wise, Accomptant. Berwick: Printed and Sold by R. Taylor. 1754. (Price, Two Shillings and Sixpence.).

~~329~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (1766 [1754]). The Newest Young Man's Companion, Containing, a Compendious English Grammar. Instructions to Write Variety of Hands, [...] Letters on Compliment, Business, [...] Forms of Indentures, Bonds, Wills, Testaments, [...] The Art of Painting [...] and an English Spelling Dictionary. [...] The Sixth Edition. Berwick: printed and Sold by R. Taylor. ______. (1772 [1754]). The Newest Young Man's Companion, Containing, a Compendious English Grammar. [...] By Thomas Wise, Accomptant. The Eighth Edition, Greatly Enlarged and Improved. Berwick: Printed and Sold by R. Taylor and by all the Booksellers in Great Britain and Ireland. Woolgar, William (1766 [1761]). Youth's Faithful Monitor: or, the Young Man's Best Companion. Containing a Compendious English Grammar [...] By William Woolgar, Accomptant. The Third Edition. [...] London: Printed for D. Steel, King Street, Little Tower Hill; H. Serjeant, Temple Bar; Messrs. Wilson and Fell, and J. Johnson and Co. in Paternoster Row. Wright, George (1794). The Principles of Grammar, or, Youth's English Directory, By G. Wright, Teacher of English and the Mathematics. Sunderland: printed for the Author by T. Reed; and Sold by G. G. and J. Robinson, Paternoster-Row, London. Wright, Thomas (1800). An English Grammar, by Mr. Wright. [Yarmouth?] Young, Edward (1755). The Centaur not Fabulous. In Five Letters to a Friend, on the Life in vogue. Doth he not speak Parables? Ezek. London: Printed for A. Millar in the Strand; And R. and J. Dodsley in Pallmall. ______. (1755). The Centaur not Fabulous. In Six Letters to a Friend, on the Life in Vogue. The Second Edition, Corrected. Doth he not speak Parables? Ezek. London: Printed for A. Millar in the Strand; And R. and J. Dodsley in Pallmall.

B. Secondary sources Alonso-Almeida, Francisco (2002-2003). “An assessment of punctuation in some Middle Enligh Gilbertus Anglicus’s versions of ‘The Sekenesse of Wymmen’”. Philologica Canariensia: Revista de filología de la Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria 8-9: 13-42. Alston, R. C. (1965-1970). A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800: a systematic record of writings on English, and on other languages in English, based on the collections of the principal libraries of the world. Leeds: Arnold & Son.

~~330~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Arakelian, Paul G. (1975). “Punctuation Practice in a Late Medieval English Medical Remedy-book”. Folia Linguistica Historica 22: 207-232. Armytage, W. H. G. (1964). Four Hundred Years of English Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, Frances (ed.) (1991). The Clift Family Correspondence. Sheffield: CECTAL. ______. (1994). “The effect of exposure to Standard English: the language of William Clift”. In: Stein and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600-1800. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 285-313. Bacon, Wallace A. (1964). “The Elocutionary Career of Thomas Sheridan (1719- 1788)”. Speech Monographs 31 (1): 1-53. Bailey, Richard W. (2010) “Variation and Change in Eighteenth-Century English”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 182-199. Barber, Charles (1993). The English Language: a Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barchas, Janine (1996). “Sara Fielding’s Dashing Style and Eighteenth-Century Print Culture”. ELH 63 (3): 633-656. Barnard, H. C. (1968 [1947]). A History of English Education from 1760. London: University of London Press. Baron, Naomi S. (2000). “Commas and Canaries: the role of punctuation in speech and writing”. Language Sciences (American University, Washington DC, USA) 23: 15-67. Baugh, Albert C. and Thomas, Cable (1978 [1957]). A History of the English Language [3rd ed.]. N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Beal, Joan C. (2004). English in Modern Times 1700-1945. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press. ______. (2010a). “The grocer’s apostrophe: popular prescriptivism in the 21st century”. English Today 26 (2): 57-64. ______. (2010b). “Prescriptivism and the suppression of variation”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 21-37. Benzie, W. (1972). The Dublin Orator: Thomas Sheridan’s Influence on Eighteenth-Century Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Menston: Scolar.

~~331~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Burnyeat, M. F. (1997). “Postscript on silent reading”. The Classical Quarterly 47 (1): 74-76. Buschmann-Göbels, Astrid (2008). “Bellum Grammaticale (1712) – A battle of books and a battle for the market”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 81-100. Cajka, Karen (2003). The Forgotten Women Grammarians of Eighteenth-Century England. PhD thesis: University of Connecticut. ______. (2008). “Eighteenth-Century Teacher-Grammarians and the Education of “Proper” Women”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 191-221. Calle-Martín, Javier and Antonio Miranda García (2005). “Editing Middle English Punctuation. The Case of MS Egerton 2622 (ff. 136-152)”. International Journal of English Studies 5 (2): 27-44. Chafe, Wallace (1988). “Punctuation and the Prosody of Written Language.” Written Communication. 5: 395- 426. Chapman, Don (2008). “The Eighteenth-Century Grammarians as Language Experts”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 21-36. Clanchy, M. T. (1987). From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307. London: Edward Arnold. Clemoes, Peter (1952). Liturgical Influence on Punctuation in Late Old English and Early Middle English Manuscripts. Occasional Papers 1. Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon. Cohen, Michèle (1996). Fashioning Masculinity: National identity and language in the eighteenth century. London and New York: Routledge. Cox, Brenda H. (1994). “John Mason (1706-1763)”. In: Moran (ed.), Eighteenth- Century British and American Rhetorics and Rhetoricians. Critical Studies and Sources. Westport, Greenwood Press: 170-174. Cram, David (2003). “The doctrine of sentence distinctions in seventeenth-century grammatical theory”. In: Auroux (ed.), History of Linguistics 1999. Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on the History of the Language

~~332~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Sciences, 14-19 September 1999, Fontenay-St. Cloud. Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company: 109-127. Cranfield, G.A. (1962). The Development of the Provincial Newspaper 1700- 1760. Oxford: Clarendon. Cruttenden, Alan (1991). “Intonation and the Comma”. Visible Language 25 (1): 54-73. Curbelo Tavío, María Elena (2002). “De Punctis Quibus Oratio Distinguitur”. In: Jose María Maestre Maestre, Pascual Barea, Joaquín and Charlo Brea, Luis (ed.), Humanismo y Pervivencia del Mundo Clásico. Homenaje al Profesor Antonio Fontán. Vol. 2. Alcañiz-Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Humanísticos, Ediciones del Laberinto: 513-522. Curtis, S. J. (1965 [1948]). History of Education in Great Britain [6th ed.]. London: University Tutorial Press. Danet, Brenda and Bryna Bogoch (1992). “From Oral Ceremony to Written Document: the Transitional Language of Anglo-Saxon Wills”. Language & Communication 12 (2): 95-122. Dossena, Marina and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.) (2008). Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence. Methodology and Data. Bern: Peter Lang. Downey, Charlotte (ed.) (1979). American Linguistics 1700-1900. Scholar’s facsimiles & reprints. Delmar, New York: Scholar’s Facsimiles & Reprints. Esteban-Segura, María Laura (2005). “The punctuation system of the West-Saxon version of the Gospel according to Saint John”. Linguistica e Filologia 21: 29-44. Fairman, Tony (2007). “Writing and ‘the Standard’: England, 1795-1834”. Multilingua 26: 167-201. Feather, John (1985). The Provincial Book Trade in Eighteenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fens-de Zeeuw, Lyda (2008). “The Letter-Writing Manual in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: From Polite to Practical”. In: Dossena and Tieken- Boon van Ostade (eds.), Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence. Methodology and Data. Bern, Peter Lang: 163-192.

~~333~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (2011). Lindley Murray (1745-1826), Quaker and Grammarian. PhD thesis: Leiden University. Fitzmaurice, Susan M. (1998). “The Commerce of Language in the Pursuit of Politeness in Eighteenth-Century England”. English Studies 4: 309-328. ______. (2010). “Coalitions, networks, and discourse communities in Augustan England: The Spectator and the early eighteenth-century essay”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 106-132. Fries, C. (1927). “Our Possessive Forms”. The English Journal 16 (9): 693-697. Gardiner, Dorothy (1929). English Girlhood at School; A Study of Women’s Education through Twelve Centuries. London: Oxford University Press. Glaister, Geoffrey A. (2001). Encyclopedia of the Book, second edition, with a new introduction by Donald Farren. Newcastle, DE and London: Oak Knoll Press and the British Library. Goldsmith, Peter L. (1979). “Ambivalence towards Women’s Education in the Eighteenth Century: the Thoughts of Vicesimus Knox II”. Paedagogia-Historica 19: 315- 327. Görlach, Manfred (2001). Eighteenth-century English. Heidelberg: Winter. Greene, D. (ed.) (1984). Samuel Johnson. (Tuesday 14 May 1751. The Rambler 121). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grover, David H. (1969). “John Walker: The ‘Mechanical’ Man Revisited”. Southern Speech Journal 34: 288-297. Hans, Nicholas (1951). New Trends in Education in the Eighteenth Century. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Herford, C. H., Percy Simpson and Evelyn Simpson (eds.) (1925-1952). Works of Ben Jonson. 11 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hickey, Raymond (2010). “Attitudes and Concerns in Eighteenth-Century English”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-20. Hill, Bridget (1993). Eighteenth-Century Women: an Anthology. London and New York: Routledge. Honan, Park (1960). “Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century English Punctuation Theory”. English Studies 41(1-6): 92-102.

~~334~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Horner, Winifred Brian (1983). “The Eighteenth Century”. In: Horner (ed.), The Present State of Schoolarship in Historical and Contemporary Rhetoric. Columbia, Missouri University Press: 101-133. Houston, Keith (2013). Shady Characters: Ampersands, Interrobangs and other Typographical Curiosities. London: Penguin Books. Jenkinson, Hilary (1926). “Notes on the Study of English Punctuation of the Sixteenth Century”. The Review of English Studies 2 (6): 152-158. Kemp, J. A. (1972). John Wallis Grammar of the English Tongue with an Introductory Grammatico-Physical Treatise on Speech. London: Longman. Kennedy, Arthur G. (1927). A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language from the Beginning of Printing to the End of 1922 [Reprint 1961]. Harvard: University Press. Lafollete, Marcel C. (1992). Stealing into Print. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press. Lange, Cynthia F. (2013). The Comma and its Commentary, Analyses of Normative Language in Eighteenth-Century Punctuation Treatises. M.A. Dissertation: Leiden University. Little, G.D. (1984). “Punctuation”. In: Moran and Lunsford (eds.), Research in Composition and Rhetoric: A Bibliographic Sourcebook. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press: 372-398. Lyman, Rollo Lavene (1922). English Grammars in American Schools before 1850. Washington: Government Printing Office. Medina-Sánchez, Beatriz (in press). “Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots and Leaves and the ‘Oxford comma’”. Medina-Sánchez, Beatriz and Alicia Rodríguez-Álvarez (forthcoming). “Estudio comparativo de los primeros tratados de puntuación en lengua inglesa (1672-1704): terminología y función de la puntuación”. Onomázein. Michael, Ian (1970). English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. (1987). The Teaching of English from the sixteenth century to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. (1991). “More than enough English grammars”. In: Leitner (ed.), English Traditional Grammars. Amsterdam, Benjamins: 11-26.

~~335~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (2010 [1970]). English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, Thomas P. (1997). The Formation of College English: Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the British Cultural Provinces. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1999 [1985]). Authority in Language [3rd ed.]. London: Routledge. Mitchell, Bruce (1980). “The Dangers of Disguise: Old English Texts in Modern Punctuation”. The Review of English Studies, New Series 31 (124): 385- 413. Monroe, B.S. (1910). “An English Academy”. Modern Philology 8 (1): 107-122. Monson, S. C. (1991). “Dictionary Making: The Ideal versus Reality”. In: Ivir and Kalogjera (eds.), Languages in Contact and Contrast. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter: 311-316. Moran, Michael G. (1994). “Introduction”. In: Moran (ed.), Eighteenth-Century British and American Rhetorics and Rhetoricians. Critical Studies and Sources. Westport, Greenwood Press: 1-10. Morgan, Margery M. (1952). “A Treatise in Cadence”. The Modern Language Review 47 (2): 156-164. Moss, Roger B. (1981-1982). “Sterne’s Punctuation”. Eighteenth-Century Studies 15 (2): 179-200. Mugglestone, Lynda (2003). ‘Talking Proper’: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol [2nd ed.]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ______. (2010). “Registering the language –dictionaries, diction and the art of elocution”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 309-338. Navest, Karlijn (2008). “‘Borrowing a few passages’: Lady Ellenor Fenn and her use of sources’”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 223-243. ______. (2011). John Ash and the rise of the children’s grammar (LOT Dissertation Series 278). Utrecht: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. Nevalainen, Terttu (2004). “Letter writing. Introduction”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2): 181-191.

~~336~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Nevalainen, Terttu and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006). “Standardisation”. In: Hogg and Denison (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 271-311. Nevalainen, Terttu and Heli Tissari (2010). “Contextualising eighteenth-century politeness: social distinction and metaphorical leveling.” In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 133-158. Nunberg, Geoffrey (1990). The Linguistics of Punctuation. Stanford: CSLI. Ong, Walter J. (1944). “Historical Backgrounds of Elizabethan and Jacobean Punctuation Theory”. PMLA 59 (2): 349-360. Osselton, N. E. (1963). “Formal and informal spelling in eighteenth century”. English Studies 44: 267-275. ______. (1984). “Informal spelling in early modern English: 1500-1800”. English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development 3: 123-136. Parkes, Malcolm B. (1991). Scribes, Scripts, and Readers: Studies in the Communication, Presentation, and Dissemination of Medieval Texts. London: The Hambledon Press. ______. (1993). Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. California: University of California Press. Parkinson de Saz, Sara (1980). La Lingüística y la Enseñanza de las Lenguas. España: Empeño 14. Parrish, W. M. (1951). “The Concept of ‘Naturalness’”. Quarterly Journal of Speech 37: 488-454. Partridge, A. C. (1964). Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama. A Study of Colloquial Contractions, Elision, Prosody, and Punctuation. London: Edward Arnold. Paul, J. Gavin (2009). “Performance as ‘Punctuation’: Editing Shakespeare in the Eighteenth Century”. The Review of English Studies, New Series 61 (250): 390-413. Percy, Carol (1994). “Paradigms for their sex? Women’s grammars in late eighteenth-century England”. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 16 (2): 121- 141. ______. (1997). “Paradigms lost: Bishop Lowth and the poetic dialect in his English Grammar”. Neophilologus 81: 129-144.

~~337~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (2006). “Disciplining Women? Grammar, gender and leisure in the works of Ellenor Fenn (1743-1813)”. Historiographia Linguistica 33 (1/2): 109-137. ______. (2008). “Mid-century Grammars and their Reception in the Monthly Review and the Critical Review”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 125-142. ______. (2010). “Women’s grammars”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 38-58. Petti, Anthony G. (1977). English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. London: Edward Arnold. Nixon, Paul (ed.). (1938). Plautus: Stichus, Three bob day, Truculentus, The tale of a travelling bag, Fragments. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press. Primus, Beatrice (2007). “The typological and historical variation of punctuation systems”. Written Language & Literacy 10 (2): 103-128. Raftery, D. (1997). Women and Learning in English Writing, 1600-1900. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Riddell, J. A. (1973-1974). “The Beginning: English Dictionaries of the First Half of the Seventeenth-Century”. Leeds Studies in English 7: 117-153. Robertson, A. J. (Ed.) (1956 [1939]). Anglo-Saxon Charters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, F. J. G. (1972). “Trends in Education in Northern England during the Eighteenth Century: A Biographical Study”. Unpublished doctoral thesis. 3 vols. vol. I, II: University of Newcastle. Rodríguez-Álvarez, Alicia (1998a). “A Middle English Lesson on Reading Aloud”. Atlantis (Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-norteamericanos) 20 (1): 123-128. ______. (1998b). “The Role of Punctuation in 15th-Century Vernacular Deeds”. Folia Linguistica Historica 19 (1-2): 27-51. ______. (1999). “Segmentation of Fifteenth-Century Legal Texts”. SELIM (Journal of Spanish Society for Mediaeval English Language and Literature) 9: 11-20. ______. (2006). “Oral Features in Late Middle English Legal Texts”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 107 (2): 187-198. ______. (2010). “Teaching Punctuation in Early Modern England”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 46 (1): 35-49.

~~338~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Rodríguez-Álvarez, Alicia and María Esther Rodríguez-Gil (2006). “John Entick’s and Ann Fisher’s Dictionaries: An Eighteenth-Century Case of (Cons)piracy?”. International Journal of Lexicography (19) 3: 287-319. ______. (2013). “Common Topics in Eighteenth-Century Prefaces to English School Grammars: an Application of the ECEG Database”. Transactions of the Philological Society, 111 (2): 202-222. Rodríguez-Gil, María Esther (2002). Teaching English Grammar in the Eighteenth-Century: Ann Fisher. PhD thesis: Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. ______. (2008). “Ann Fischer’s A New Grammar, or was it Daniel Fisher’s work?”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 149-176. Ronberg, Gert (1995). “They Had their Points: Punctuation and Interpretation in English Renaissance Literature”. In: Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Pragmatics & Beyond Series. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 55-63. Saenger, P. (1982). “Silent reading: its impact on late medieval script and society”. Viator 13: 367-414. Salmon,Vivian (1962). “Early Seventeenth-Century Punctuation as a Guide to Sentence Structure”. R.E.S. New Series 13 (52): 347-360. ______. (1988). “English Punctuation Theory 1500-1800”. Anglia (Zeitschrift für englische Philologie) 106: 285-314. ______. (2000). “Orthography and Punctuation”. In: Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III 1476-1776. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 13-55. Saunders, J. W. (1951). “The Stigma of Print: A Note on the Social Bases of Tudor Poetry”. Essays In Criticism 1 (2): 139-164. Sherman, William H. (2005). “Toward a History of the Manicule” (online). http://www.livesandletters.ac.uk/ Shields, A. F. (1973). Thomas Spence and the English Language. M.A. dissertation: Department of English Language, School of English, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

~~339~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Simon, Brian (1960). Studies in the History of Education 1780-1870. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Smith, R. D. (1998). “Eighteenth-Century Linguistics and Authorship: The Cases of Dyche, Priestley, and Buchanan”. In: Fisiak and Krygier (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 435-441. Spoel, Philippa M. (2001). “Rereading the Elocutionists: The Rhetoric of Thomas Sheridan’s A Course of Lectures on Elocution and John Walker’s Elements of Elocution”. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 19 (1): 49-91. Stock, B. (1983). The Implications of Literacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sturiale, Massimo (2006). “William Perry’s The Royal Standard English Dictionary (1775): A Provincial’s Attempt to Ascertain and Fix a Standard to the Pronunciation of the English Tongue”. Historiographia Linguistica 33 (1/2): 139- 168. Sundby, B., Bjørge, A. K. and Haugland, K. E. (1991). A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700-1800. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (1996). “Lindley Murray and the Concept of Plagiarism”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Two Hundred Years of Lindley Murray. Münster, Nodus Publikationen: 81-96. ______. (2000a). “A Little Learning a Dangerous Thing? Learning and Gender in Sarah Fielding’s Letters to James Harris”. Language Sciences (22): 339- 358. ______. (August/September 2000b). “Female Grammarians of the Eighteenth Century”. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics. ______. (2008a). “The 1760s: Grammars, Grammarians and the Booksellers”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 101-124. ______. (2008b). “Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing: An Introduction”. In: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 1- 14. ______. (2009). An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ______. (2010a). “The usage guide: its birth and popularity”. English Today 26 (2): 14- 23.

~~340~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

______. (2010b). “Eighteenth-Century Women and their Norms of Correctness”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 59-72. ______. (2010c). “Lowth as an icon of prescriptivism”. In: Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 73-88. ______. (2010d). The Bishop’s Grammar. Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______. (2014). In Search of Jane Austen: The Language of the Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and W. van der Wurff (2009). “Papers from 3LmodE: an introduction”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade and van der Wurff (eds.), Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern, Peter Lang: 9-32. van den Berg, Sara (1995). “Marking his Place: Ben Jonson’s Punctuation.” Early Modern Literary Studies 1.3: 2.1-25. Vandraegen, Daniel (1953). “Thomas Sheridan and the Natural School”. Speech Monographs 20: 58-64. Vorlat, Emma (1959). “The Sources of Lindley Murray’s ‘The English Grammar’”. Leuvense Bijdragen 48: 108-125. ______. (1964). Progress in English Grammar 1585-1735. A Study of the Development of English Grammar and of the Interdependence among the Early English Grammarians. Luxembourg: Armand Peiffer. ______. (2001). “Lexical rules on Robert Baker’s ‘Reflections on the English Language’”. Leuvense Bijdragen 90/4: 391-401. ______. (2007). “On the History of English Teaching Grammars”. In: Schmitter (ed.), Sprachtheorien der Neuzeit III/2. Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag: 500-525. Watts, Richard J. (2008). “Grammar writers in eighteenth-century Britain: A community of practice or a discourse community?”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 37-56. Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria (2008). “Preposition stranding in the eighteenth century: Something to talk about”. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars,

~~341~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 251-277. ______. (2012). “Grammar Writing and and Provincial Grammar Printing in the Eighteenth-Century British Isles”. Transactions of the Philological Society 110 (1): 34-63. Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria and María E. Rodríguez-Gil (2013). “The ECEG Database”. Transactions of the Philological Society 111 (2): 143-164. Zeeman, Elizabeth (1956). “Punctuation in an Early Manuscript of Love’s Mirror”. The Review of English Studies, New Series 7 (25): 11-18. Zuidema, Leah A. (1996). “Coming to Terms: The Vocabulary of English Punctuation”. The English Journal 85 (7): 135-136.

C. Corpora and online resources ECCO = Eighteenth Century Collections Online. At www.gale.com/EighteenthCentury ECEG = Eighteenth-Century English Grammars database, 2010. Compiled by María Esther Rodríguez Gil (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) and Nuria Yáñez-Bouza (The University of Manchester, UK). At www.tinyurl.com/eceg-access EEBO = English Early English Books. Chadwyck. http://eebo.chadwyck.com Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. At www.britannica.com Encyclopaedia Brittanica Online, Acaemic Edition. At www.eb.com ODNB = The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://www.oxforddnb.com.// OED Online = Oxford University Press, Online Edition. www.oed.com Oxford Reference. At www.oxfordreference.com. Wikimedia (online). https://www.wikimedia.org

~~342~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~9. Resumen en español~~

Índice 1. Descripción general de la tesis 2. Objetivos del presente estudio 3. Corpus y Metodología 4. El Siglo de las Luces y la preocupación por la corrección linguistica en la sociedad inglesa 5. La función de la puntuación a lo largo de la historia 6. Resultados del análisis del corpus objeto de estudio 6.1. Importancia de los signos de puntuación 6.2. Teorías de la puntuación 6.3. Ubicación de la discusión sobre la puntuación 6.3.1. Puntuación situada en ninguna sección específica 6.3.2. Puntuación situada en dos o tres secciones 6.3.3. Puntuación situada en secciones sintácticas y ortográficas 6.3.4. Puntuación situada en secciones retóricas y prosódicas 6.3.5. Puntuación situada en forma de apéndice o suplemento 6.3.6. Puntuación situada en las secciones tituladas ‘Sílabas’ y ‘Letras’ 6.3.7. Cambio de ubicación de la discusión sobre la puntuación en posteriores ediciones 6.3.8. Conclusiones 6.4. Sistemas de puntuación 6.5. Funciones de los signos de puntuación 6.6. Términos genéricos 6.6.1. La etimología de la terminología genérica como indicador (in)consciente de la postura del autor hacia la lengua inglesa 6.6.2. Correlación entre los sistemas de partes del discurso analizados por Michael (1970) y los sistemas de puntuación del presente trabajo: modelos latinos vs. modelos vernáculos 6.7. Fuentes de las citas y de los ejemplos 6.7.1. Fuentes de los ejemplos

~~343~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~6.7.2. Fuentes de la teoría de la puntuación 6.7.2.1. Tratados y ensayos 6.7.2.2. Gramáticas citadas 6.7.2.3. Diccionarios citados 6.8. Casos de plagio 7. Conclusiones~~

~~344~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

1. Descripción general de la tesis En esta tesis hemos llevado a cabo un análisis sincrónico y diacrónico de las teorías de la puntuación promulgadas en las gramáticas inglesas publicadas a lo largo del siglo dieciocho. La relevancia de este estudio estriba en que hemos podido esclarecer cuál era la función o funciones principales de los signos de puntuación y su evolución a lo largo de este periodo.

2. Objetivos del presente estudio Nuestro objetivo principal es investigar el estatus y el proceso de estandarización que se llevó a cabo en lo que respecta a la puntuación a lo largo del siglo dieciocho. Con este objetivo en mente, hemos centrado nuestra atención en la sección sobre puntuación incluida en muchas gramáticas. Así, en vez de analizar la puntuación que utilizaban los autores de la época, hemos preferido estudiar lo que los gramáticos comentaban sobre ella. Por lo tanto, este estudio se enfoca en la teoría y no en la práctica y, hasta donde sabemos, ningún estudio de esta índole y envergadura se ha realizado hasta la actualidad. Un estudio similar fue el emprendido por Michael (1970) quien analizó los sistemas de partes del discurso que los autores de gramáticas, desde la época clásica hasta el siglo dieciocho, apoyaban y difundían en ellas. Hemos seleccionado las gramáticas porque, como veremos más adelante, fueron uno de los libros más vendidos a lo largo del siglo dieciocho. Al ser un componente gramatical más, la puntuación debía ser codificada en obras tales como gramáticas y diccionarios que regulaban la lengua y su uso. Por medio del análisis de la función general de la puntuación, el inventario de signos, las reglas de cada uno de ellos, la terminología genérica y los autores citados ‒e incluso plagiados‒ sabremos cuán importante era la puntuación para sus autores. Además, sabremos qué sistemas de puntuación, a su juicio, eran los más apoyados y, por ende, disfrutaban de mayor popularidad entre sus coetáneos.

3. Corpus y metodología El corpus de estudio ha sido compilado gracias a la base de datos en línea ECEG (Eighteenth-Century English Grammars), obra de Yáñez-Bouza y Rodríguez-Gil publicada en 2010. ECEG ha servido de marco para poder extraer los títulos de las gramáticas que se publicaron a lo largo del siglo dieciocho en Inglaterra y

~~345~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

América. Una vez compilado nuestro corpus, nos centramos en saber cuántas gramáticas estaban disponibles, a su vez, en ECCO (Eigtheenth-Century Collections Online). En total, las fuentes primarias ascendieron a 290 ediciones de 106 gramáticas escritas por 99 autores. Nuestro interés en primeras y posteriores ediciones se debe a que algunos autores no incluían una sección sobre puntuación en las primeras ediciones de sus gramáticas mientras que en posteriores ediciones sí la incluían, como por ejemplo en la gramática escrita por Ralph Harrison, Institutes of English Grammar (1777). A diferencia de este, Webster en su Grammatical Institute of the English Language (1785) incluyó una sección sobre puntuación en la primera edición pero en las siguientes, no. En la primera fase de este proyecto categorizamos las 290 ediciones que componen el corpus de acuerdo a dos preceptos: a la década de su publicación y a la cuestión de si incluye o no una sección sobre puntuación. La cantidad total de autores que sí incluyeron una sección sobre puntuación en sus obras refleja el valor conferido a la puntuación a lo largo del siglo dieciocho, como mostramos en la Tabla 1:

~~Décadas 1700- 1710- 1720- 1730- 1740- 1750- 1760- 1770- 1780- 1790- Total 10 20 30- 40 50 60 70 80 90 1800~~

~~Gramáticas 1 7 3 8 11 12 41 55 60 91 289~~

~~Puntuación 0 7 3 8 10 11 35 41 47 78 240 incluida~~

~~Puntuación 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 14 13 13 49 excluida~~

~~Tabla 1. Clasificación de las ediciones por década~~

Como se muestra en la tabla anterior, de las 290 ediciones iniciales, finalmente analizamos 238 ediciones de 80 gramáticas escritas por 75 autores. En realidad, una de las 290 ediciones, más concretamente la de Wright (1800), no fue tenida en cuenta en la clasificación porque las últimas veinte páginas de su gramática no estaban bien escaneadas. Asimismo, aunque las ediciones de Greenwood (1744) y Shaw (1793) sí aparecen en la Tabla 1 dentro del grupo de 240 gramáticas que sí disertaron sobre puntuación, no podemos hacer un estudio más detallado de ellas porque las últimas páginas de sus secciones sobre puntuación no están

~~346~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

disponibles. En resumidas cuentas, nuestro corpus está compuesto por 238 ediciones. Una vez acotado nuestro corpus de estudio, nos dedicamos a estudiar en profundidad cada una de las ediciones a partir de ocho criterios, cinco de los cuales están relacionados con el tratamiento de la puntuación en sí mientras que los dos restantes están relacionados con la disposición de la sección y el uso de las fuentes secundarias en general. El primer criterio es la importancia que tiene la puntuación para el autor por lo que estudiaremos los argumentos que emplea. El segundo criterio es la teoría, la tradición o el enfoque de la puntuación que el autor apoya, pudiendo así determinar cuál(es) son su(s) función(es) general(es). El tercer criterio es el sistema de puntuación que el autor defiende o, en otras palabras, el número de signos de puntuación y su clasificación. Gracias a este criterio hemos podido establecer paralelismos entre el estudio realizado por Michael (1970) y el nuestro. El cuarto criterio es la función o funciones que desempeñan cada uno de los signos de puntuación individualmente. Por medio de este análisis hemos codificado las reglas de puntuación asignadas a cada signo a lo largo de un siglo. El quinto criterio es el análisis etimológico de la terminología genérica que cada autor utiliza, la cual ha resultado ser un claro indicador de una postura reformista o conservadora en cuanto a la puntuación. Además, para saber cuán reformista o conservador era el autor en cuestión, hemos comparado los resultados de nuestro análisis etimológico con los de Michael (1970). El sexto criterio es la ubicación de la sección sobre puntuación dentro de la obra, pudiendo estar en el apartado dedicado a la sintaxis, a la prosodia o a la ortografía, entre otros. De hecho, la ubicación dice mucho de la función que la puntuación desempeña para el autor. El séptimo criterio es el análisis de las fuentes secundarias que los autores citaron para respaldar sus teorías o bien para ilustrarlas. Como cabría esperar, los autores más citados suelen ser los que cuentan con mayor popularidad. El octavo y último criterio es la identificación de plagios por medio de los cuales hemos podido trazar influencias entre varios autores. A diferencia de los seis primeros, los dos últimos criterios –el análisis de las fuentes secundarias y los casos de plagio–se aplicaron únicamente a las primeras ediciones de las gramáticas de nuestro corpus. Al término del presente trabajo hemos incluido tres apéndices (A, B y C). En el apéndice A se hace un inventario completo de los sistemas de puntuación

~~347~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

encontrados en las 238 gramáticas. En el B se clasifican los autores según el tipo de sistema de puntuación que le hemos asignado. En el C mostramos una lista ordenada cronológicamente de todas las ediciones de las gramáticas consultadas.

4. El Siglo de las Luces y la preocupación por la corrección linguistica en la sociedad inglesa El siglo dieciocho está considerado como un periodo clave en el proceso de estandarización de la lengua inglesa porque dos de las fases de dicho proceso, más concretamente las fases de codificación y prescripción de las reglas gramaticales, se manifestaron a través de la creciente creación y divulgación de reglas en gramáticas y diccionarios, entre otros tipos de texto. Según el proceso de estandarización ideado por Milroy y Milroy (1999 [1985]), las siete fases serían: selección, aceptación, difusión, elaboración de la función, codificación y prescripción. Con respecto a la selección, se elige la variedad de la lengua que, generalmente, se habla en la zona más próspera del país para convertirla en la futura variedad estándar; la fase de aceptación implica el apoyo institucional a la variedad seleccionada; en la fase de difusión, como su nombre indica, distintos organismos institucionales encargados de expedir, por ejemplo, reales órdenes propagan la variedad seleccionada y aceptada; en la fase de mantenimiento juega un papel crucial la imprenta, introducida en Inglaterra por William Caxton en 1476, porque los libros impresos mantienen y difunden a mayor escala la variedad adoptada a nivel institucional; en la fase de elaboración de la función la lengua inglesa reemplaza el latín como la lengua institucional y de aprendizaje; en la fase de codificación distintas reglas gramaticales se crean y se difunden en diccionarios y gramáticas; la fase de prescripción, por último, supone la imposición de dichas reglas al hablante de la lengua. El objetivo principal de los gramáticos era fijar la lengua y por ello se abogaba por una variedad funcional y, a la vez, prestigiosa del inglés, la cual se identificaba con la variedad que los miembros del estrato social más alto hablaban. Aquellos pertenecientes a la clase social media constituían la audiencia a la que las gramáticas estaban dirigidas porque ellos demandaban libros que sirviesen de auto-guía en el uso correcto de la lengua para poder ascender y ajustarse, así, a las convenciones lingüísticas y sociales de las clases sociales más altas. De ahí la proliferación de un mercado libresco que, básicamente, se

~~348~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

retroalimentaba de la inseguridad de los lectores para fomentar normas y reglas gramaticales arbitrarias ilustradas por medio de la crítica o, bien, el elogio de las prácticas de otros escritores. Además, muchos autores defendieron el principio de la ‘razón’ por encima del de ‘uso’ o, en términos lingüísticos, la ‘lengua’ por encima del ‘habla’. Es decir, muchos autores eligieron el ‘uso’, el habla o la práctica real que se hacía de la lengua como el criterio adecuado para codificar la variedad estándar; otros, por el contrario, rechazaron dicho criterio bajo el argumento de que es la práctica o el uso diario de la lengua ‒y no la lengua como sistema‒la que está llena de “incorrecciones”. Los gramáticos diferían, también, en la cantidad de juicios o críticas a otros incluidas en sus obras. Durante la primera mitad del siglo dieciocho los autores de las gramáticas publicaban sus obras sin juzgar los usos que otros contemporáneos hacían de la lengua, por lo que no se centraban en ilustrar un uso ‘correcto’ e ‘incorrecto’ de esta. Por el contrario, los autores de las gramáticas publicadas a lo largo de la segunda mitad describían la lengua inglesa desde el punto de vista del uso ‘ideal’ –e incluso utópico- de la lengua, incluyendo así proscripciones y alusiones a los ‘mejores’ autores al igual que a aquellos que cometían ‘faltas’ o incorrecciones gramaticales. Este enfoque en la descripción de la lengua tenía un fin pedagógico porque los deseosos de progresar en la sociedad seguían las pautas dictadas en las gramáticas y evitaban los usos ‘incorrectos’ ejemplificados en dichas obras. Además de en los juicios o críticas, las gramáticas publicadas en la primera mitad diferían de las publicadas en la segunda en el tratamiento de lo que se consideraba ‘cortesía’ o ‘buena educación’. En términos generales, en las primeras se hacía hincapié en que la ‘buena educación’ se podía alcanzar por medio de la práctica. Por lo tanto, cualquier persona, independientemente del estrato social en el que se encuentre, puede adquirirla. A diferencia de estas, en las segundas se trataba la ‘buena educación’ en términos de ‘corrección’ e ‘incorrección’ lingüística; por consiguiente, los autores no instruían a los lectores sino que juzgaban y recalcaban las diferencias entre las clases sociales. La lengua inglesa no siempre formó parte del currículo escolar. En el sistema educativo inglés podíamos encontrar: escuelas para el estrato social más bajo, es decir, las llamadas ‘charity schools’; las escuelas tradicionales llamadas ‘grammar schools’ a las que asistían los alumnos de las clases sociales medias y altas; las academias disidentes y escuelas privadas. Todas estas instituciones diferían en el

~~349~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

tipo de currículo ofertado: las ‘charity schools’ estaban orientadas al trabajo que los más pobres debían desempeñar por lo que se les enseñaba a coser, cultivar y tejer, entre otras labores; las ‘grammar schools’, a su vez, no se enfocaban en el trabajo sino en la carrera o profesión de los alumnos por lo que, al ser instruidos principalmente en lenguas clásicas, estos accederían a la universidad o a puestos relacionados con la Iglesia y la docencia; las escuelas privadas y, especialmente, las ‘dissenting academies’ ofertaban un currículo más amplio de corte científico en el que se enseñaban diversas asignaturas como geografía, historia, matemáticas e inglés, entre otras. La lengua inglesa se incluyó en los currículos de las dos primeras instituciones mencionadas anteriormente de forma progresiva gracias a la promulgación de la teoría del asociacionismo. Por medio de esta teoría se establece, por primera vez, que todo hombre es producto de sus circunstancias. Por consiguiente, todo individuo posee capacidades de aprendizaje que pueden desarrollarse por medio de la educación y es precisamente esta la que puede cambiar la vida del individuo. Por lo tanto, el currículo debía ampliarse para que el individuo adquiriese una educación, ante todo útil, en la que debía incorporarse el estudio de la lengua inglesa al ser la lengua vernácula. Así, con la inclusión de la lengua inglesa en los diversos currículos escolares, se asentaron las bases de la educación moderna. Sin embargo, la descripción de esta lengua se hizo, inicialmente, de acuerdo a las categorías gramaticales latinas. El latín era una lengua rica a nivel morfológico mientras que el inglés, a nivel sintáctico. Muchos fueron los que tomaron conciencia de esta diferencia y, en respuesta, explicaron la lengua inglesa en términos de orden de palabra y de colocación sintáctica. Aunque las gramáticas variaban levemente en cuanto a la estructura, contenido y extensión, se distinguían, sobre todo, por su enfoque conservador o reformista. Por un lado, aquellos defensores de un enfoque vernáculo en la descripción de la lengua inglesa impulsaron el llamado movimiento reformista, iniciado por Gill en 1619, que promovía el manejo de terminología vernácula y un sistema de cuatro categorías gramaticales, a diferencia de aquellos autores que seguían la tradición clásica y, por ende, una descripción latinizada de la lengua inglesa. De hecho, gracias al análisis de los sistemas de las partes del discurso incluidos en diversas gramáticas publicadas desde el periodo clásico hasta el siglo dieciocho, Michael (1970) ha sido capaz de clasificar las gramáticas en cuatro grandes grupos: (i) sistemas latinos, (ii) sistemas modificados antes del año 1700, (iii) sistemas

~~350~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

vernáculos, (iv) sistemas modificados después del año 1700. Según sus resultados, el primer grupo, es decir, las gramáticas que presentaban sistemas latinos, era el más numeroso por lo que la influencia de la lengua clásica persistió en el tiempo. Aunque en el siglo dieciocho el gremio de los lingüistas no existía, sí había una comunidad discursiva, la de los autores de gramáticas. Estos escritores tenían en común intereses y objetivos y, sus discursos, en la práctica, los reflejaban hasta el punto de que la terminología y los ejemplos se asemejaban. De hecho, el plagio era una constante en las gramáticas inglesas. Dentro de esta comunidad discursiva encontramos, a su vez, una comunidad de mujeres escritoras, en su mayoría docentes, cuyas gramáticas elementales estaban dirigidas principalmente a un público femenino. En total, se publicaron catorce gramáticas escritas por mujeres, tales como las escritas por Ann Fisher (1719-1778) y Ellin Devis (1746-1820), entre otras. Una comunidad discursiva que estaba intrínsecamente conectada con la de los autores de gramáticas era la de los críticos de revistas y publicaciones periódicas como the Monthly Review o the Critical Review en las que no solo se evaluaban positiva y negativamente las gramáticas, sino que se exponían los errores que sus autores cometían. En este sentido, al igual que los autores de las gramáticas, los críticos participaron en el proceso de estandarización de la lengua inglesa y, dada la creciente preocupación por los casos de plagio entre obras, ambas comunidades denunciaron públicamente el uso indebido que muchos hicieron de las fuentes secundarias. Las denuncias de plagio aumentaron en número a lo largo del siglo dieciocho quizás por la ejecución de la ley de derechos de autor aprobada en 1709 por la que los autores tenían derecho exclusivo de propiedad sobre sus obras. A pesar de que muchos autores como Lindley Murray fueron acusados de plagio, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1996) ha demostrado que muchos de ellos lo fueron injustamente. Las razones que motivan a los autores a copiar nos ayudan a distinguir un plagiador de otro que no lo es realmente; es decir, el primero, movido por los beneficios económicos, copia deliberadamente; el segundo, actuando de ‘buena fe’, reconoce, desde el inicio, que su obra deriva de otras aunque no especifique de cuál(es). Por lo tanto, por mucho que encontremos casos de plagio (‘true plagiarism’), de copia no reconocida (‘unacknowledged copying’), de plagio entre lenguas (‘interlingual plagiarism’), y de apropiación

~~351~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~habitual de ejemplos y teorías (‘customary appropriation’), debemos, en primera instancia, analizar los motivos que movieron al autor a copiar lo dicho por otros.~~

5. La función de la puntuación a lo largo de la historia La palabra inglesa ‘punctuation’ deriva de la palabra latina punctus (Baron, 2000: 21) por lo que, inicialmente, la función asignada a los signos de puntuación tenía un carácter retórico o elocutivo originado en la tradición clásica. Al ser un componente de la gramática, la puntuación sufrió modificaciones en muchos aspectos, como en su función general e inventario de signos, a lo largo del proceso de estandarización de la lengua inglesa. En cuanto a la función general de la puntuación, son varias las tradiciones o teorías que definen la puntuación a partir del papel que desempeñan los dos medios: el de la escritura y el del habla. Las tradiciones retórica y gramatical/lógica/sintáctica, difieren en la función del medio escrito porque, según la primera, este se utiliza para representar el discurso hablado mientras que, según la segunda, se utiliza para registrar transacciones en documentos. Por lo tanto, desde la perspectiva de la tradición retórica, la escritura no era un medio en sí mismo porque dependía del medio oral; desde la perspectiva de la tradición gramatical, por el contrario, la escritura era un medio independiente. Para algunos como Nunberg (1990), los signos de puntuación son ‘ideographs’ (Salmon, 2000), es decir, signos ideográficos porque son elementos que se encuentran únicamente en la escritura y, por ende, no están ‘disponibles’ en la oralidad. Otros como Chafe (1988) consideran que los signos de puntuación son ‘phonemic’ o fonémicos, es decir, que tienen relación con los fonemas porque en la lengua escrita existe una prosodia que los signos de puntuación revelan parcialmente. Cruttenden (1991), entre otros, adopta una actitud más ecléctica al fusionar las tradiciones retórica y gramatical en su descripción de la función general de la puntuación según la cual existe una relación entre la sintaxis, los signos de puntuación y la entonación. En cualquier caso, la puntuación deriva de la escritura a pesar de que muchos le atribuyan un carácter oral. Las teorías de la puntuación han sido varias: retórica, gramatical, hermenéutica y tipográfica. La puntuación retórica es aquella que se emplea en los textos para que el orador pueda leer el texto en alto de manera adecuada, siguiendo pautas relacionadas con la entonación, las pausas respiratorias, la prosodia, la cadencia e, incluso, la música. Por el contrario, la puntuación gramatical es la que se emplea

~~352~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

en los textos para indicar relaciones gramaticales y de significado entre los elementos que constituyen la oración. Como hemos comentado con anterioridad, esta teoría es posterior a la retórica porque no existía en la tradición clásica. La teoría hermenéutica, acuñada por Parkes (1993), la originaron los humanistas, quienes sobrecargaban los textos con signos de puntuación. Según ellos, la puntuación es una guía para la interpretación del texto porque indica matices sintácticos y semánticos que el escritor quiere transmitir. Por consiguiente, los humanistas hicieron hincapié en la exégesis o explicación, interpretación del texto. Por último, la teoría o tradición tipográfica, acuñada por Little (1994, citada en Baron, 2000), está íntimamente ligada a la anterior porque los impresores, quienes crearon las convenciones sobre la puntuación que se convirtieron, a su vez, en norma en textos posteriores, se basaron en las prácticas humanistas. A lo largo de los periodos históricos tratados en el presente trabajo hemos trazado la evolución que sufrió la puntuación en su función general como resultado de la reconsideración de los papeles desempeñados por los medios escrito y oral. En diccionarios académicos como el OED (Oxford English Dictionary) la puntuación actual tiene una función puramente sintáctica y semántica. Además, en el diccionario se hace mención de la función anterior, actualmente en desuso, de los signos de puntuación como marcadores de patrones musicales y pausas en la lectura oral. Por lo tanto, gracias a definiciones como la que aporta el OED podemos inferir que la puntuación sufrió cambios drásticos en cuanto a su función a lo largo de los años. Entre los periodos comentados, la Edad Media fue un periodo clave porque la puntuación fue sometida a cambios en lo que a nomenclatura y símbolos se refiere. En el inglés antiguo al igual que en el inglés medieval el sistema de puntuación no estaba estandarizado, como hemos venido comentando. Sin embargo, a diferencia de los encontrados en el antiguo, los sistemas del inglés medieval sí eran consistentes en sí mismos. Durante la baja Edad Media el sistema de puntuación tenía un carácter retórico dado la influencia que las lenguas clásicas ejercían en la educación europea medieval pero en la alta Edad Media se produce un cambio: la integración del carácter gramatical en la puntuación hace que confluyan ambas teorías, la retórica y la gramatical. Este cambio tiene lugar porque el medio escrito alcanzó mayor autonomía gracias a la proliferación de documentos escritos y a la creciente lectura en silencio ‒la cual era la excepción y no la norma‒durante la Edad Media. En la práctica, la

~~353~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

puntuación variaba según el tipo de texto, el grado de formalidad y el objetivo último por lo que, cuanto más formal era el texto escrito, más signos de puntuación se incluían en él. Ante esta falta de estandarización, los impresores se esforzaron por fijar reglas de puntuación. Es por ello que Salmon (2000) considera los siglos dieciséis, diecisiete y dieciocho como los más importantes en el desarrollo de una ortografía y puntuación estándar. Los impresores optaron por una puntuación gramatical porque esta, ante todo, debía emplearse para clarificar el sentido del texto. Como respuesta al uso caótico que muchos escritores hacían de los signos de puntuación, los impresores se sentían obligados a modificar la puntuación original. Al hacerlo, los impresores se enfrentaban al dilema de qué objetivo alcanzar: el de la accesibilidad o el de la autenticidad (van den Berg, 1995). Si el objetivo trazado era el primero, el de la accesibilidad, la puntuación original se modificaba si era caótica porque el texto, ante todo, debía ser inteligible. Si, por el contrario, el objetivo que se debía cumplir era el de la autenticidad, el impresor debía respetar la puntuación del escritor ya que debía preservar la originalidad del texto. Durante el siglo diecisiete aumentó el interés por la puntuación hasta el punto de que se escribieron tratados sobre el tema (véase Lewis, 1672, por ejemplo). Se perfeccionaron reglas sintácticas al igual que reglas sobre la entonación y se otorgó una gran importancia a la transmisión correcta del sentido del texto. De este modo, la tradición hermenéutica ganó adeptos. Sin embargo, esta tradición fue finalmente rechazada por el exceso de signos de puntuación que presentaba, como hemos dicho anteriormente. Finalmente, durante el siglo dieciocho vemos una clara independencia del medio escrito. Aunque las tradiciones retórica y gramatical se mentaban en las gramáticas, se dio preferencia a la segunda sobre la primera porque para los impresores era más fácil de aplicar. De ahí el uso únicamente sintáctico de los signos de puntuación en el inglés moderno. En cuanto al inventario de signos de puntuación, este también sufrió modificaciones. Los primeros signos creados por Aristófanes de Bizancio (257?- 180? a. C.) representaban pausas elocutivas y estos se llamaban comma, colon y periodus. La primera indicaba pausas cortas; la segunda, pausas más largas; la tercera, pausas aun más largas (Baron, 2000). Posteriormente, el grupo de pausas de Aristófanes pasó a denominarse positurae las cuales, por primera vez, eran signos de puntuación en sí mismos y no simples pausas, llamados distinction,

~~354~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

media distinction y subdistinctio (Ong, 1944). En inglés antiguo encontramos tres signos de puntuación cuyas funciones eran intercambiables porque, como ya hemos comentado, los signos no estaban estandarizados y eran: el punctus (·), punctus elevatus ( ) y el punctus versus (;). Durante la Edad Media el inventario de signos se amplió, albergando entonces cinco signos de puntuación: litterae notabiliores, punctus (.), punctus interrogativus ( ), punctus elevatus ( ) y la virgula suspensiva (/). Entre todos ellos, el punctus era el más común y podía aparecer a nivel oracional, sintagmático y de cláusula. La vírgula, a su vez, mostraba más variación que el resto en cuanto a su representación gráfica porque podía aparecer sola, doble o anexa a un punto, es decir, (/), (./), (.//) o (//.). En textos especializados encontramos, además, el simplex ductus ( ) o la pausa en forma de número siete y la variante del párrafo o paragraphus ( § ) que podía ser sustituido por la otra variante ( ¶ ), llamada ‘pilcrow’ en lengua inglesa, cuya evolución se representa perfectamente en la siguiente ilustración extraída de Wikimedia (en línea):

Como podemos apreciar en la ilustración, el signo de párrafo o ‘pilcrow’ era, originariamente, la letra “C” que indicaba el inicio de un nuevo capítulo o capitulum. Posteriormente, durante el siglo doce, se añadió una barra vertical –y después dos‒a dicha letra para convertirla en una littera notabilior o letra más notable, es decir, una letra agrandada. Finalmente, la letra fue reemplazada por el signo de párrafo para indicar comienzo de tema o párrafo. En menor medida, se han dado casos de ‘colon’ o dos puntos (:) (Rodríguez- Álvarez, 1998b; Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005), guión largo o ‘dash’ (–) (Jenkinson, 1926) y guión doble o ‘double hyphen’ (=) (Calle-Martín and Miranda, 2005). Durante los siglos dieciséis y diecisiete, es decir, en el inglés moderno temprano, el inventario de signos aumentó en mayor medida y se refinaron sus funciones y los símbolos. En total, los impresores introdujeron los siguientes signos de puntuación: el apóstrofo (’), el guión (-), los corchetes ([]), la

~~355~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

diéresis (¨), el signo de exclamación (!), los paréntesis (), las comillas (“”), la marca de inserción o ‘caret’ (^), las llaves ({}), el asterisco (*), el obelisco (†) y el índice (☞). Gran parte de estos signos tenían funciones gráficas. En lo concerniente a los símbolos, tanto la vírgula (/) como el punctus interrogativus ( ) evolucionaron a la coma (,) y signo de interrogación (?) actuales, respectivamente. No obstante, a pesar del perfeccionamiento al que se sometieron los signos de puntuación, la nomenclatura seguía mostrando variedad. En el siglo dieciocho, o en el inglés moderno tardío, continuaron los esfuerzos por fijar las funciones de ciertos signos que presentaban más dudas a los escritores, es decir, el apóstrofo, las comillas, los dos puntos y el guión largo. Curiosamente este último se empleaba con un carácter más hermenéutico en novelas de algunos escritores como Sarah Fielding y Laurence Sterne al igual que en las cartas privadas de Jane Austen aunque, según Baron (2000), este signo ya estaba completamente estandarizado en el año 1730. Cuando decimos que el guión largo se utilizaba de manera hermenéutica nos referimos a que se empleaba para señalar silencios y signos de conversación que indicaban el estado anímico del personaje. Por consiguiente, en estas novelas el guión no era un signo gráfico únicamente sino un signo que marcaba oralidad. De hecho, Sarah Fielding agrandaba o empequeñecía el guión largo con el fin de indicar dudas, interrupciones y demás que podemos encontrar en el discurso hablado, por lo que sus novelas se asemejaban a conversaciones reales (Barchas, 2006). Véase, a modo de ilustración, el despliegue de guiones largos en la novela Las Aventuras de David Simple (1744) de esta escritora: WHAT a Condition was I in―what could I think!– – – My Brother– – Dorimene– – Dumont– – – all seemed involved in one common Madness. (2: 195; citado en Barchas, 1996: 640).

~~6. Resultados del análisis del corpus objeto de estudio~~

6.1. Importancia de los signos de puntuación El primer gramático que se refirió a la doctrina de la puntuación como un arte, en el sentido del término latino ars, fue Martin en 1754. Si consideramos el número de ediciones publicadas durante la primera mitad del siglo dieciocho, 28 en

~~356~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

total,111 y que ya otros como Monteith, autor del tratado de puntuación publicado en 1704, se refirieron a la puntuación como tal, podríamos concluir que dicha denominación fue tardía. No obstante, siguiendo los pasos de Martin (1754), durante la segunda mitad del siglo otros veintiún gramáticos consideraron que la puntuación merece el estatus de ‘arte’. Otros dos gramáticos se refirieron a la puntuación no como un arte sino como una parte introductoria al conocimiento general de las lenguas (Ward, 1766) o una “capacidad” superior que no está al alcance de los jóvenes (Buchanan, 1768). Para muchos otros la puntuación es “absolutamente” o “muy necesaria” (Woolgar, 1766; Wise, 1772; Anon. 1788a) porque aporta “gracia o credibilidad a nuestra escritura”112 (Woolgar, 1766). La necesidad de emplear los signos de puntuación en el discurso escrito se formuló, asimismo, en términos de inteligibilidad. Para justificar la importancia de la puntuación en la escritura, varios autores hicieron alusión a las consecuencias negativas que una mala praxis podría conllevar ya que, para ellos, una mala disposición de los signos de puntuación da lugar a un texto ininteligible para el lector hasta el punto de que el verdadero sentido del texto se confunde (Fisher, 1753; Wilson, 1792). Sin embargo, por muy importante que sea en el discurso escrito, la puntuación es imperfecta y, por consiguiente, necesita ser estandarizada. Es decir, algunos gramáticos como Lowth (1762) aseveran que la puntuación es imperfecta, aduciendo que no indica con precisión las pausas de diferente duración y que su uso es subjetivo (Metcalfe, 1771; Meikleham, 1781). Dado que el uso de los signos de puntuación varía de un escritor a otro, algunos gramáticos como Greenwood (1711) demandan un consenso en las reglas de puntuación. Por el contrario, Webster (1784), entre muchos otros, acepta la ‘imperfección’ de la puntuación y rechaza la creación de reglas de puntuación, aduciendo que el escritor debe guiarse por la observación (Mennye, 1785; Anon., 1788b; Bingham, 1790) y seguir su propio criterio (Lowth, 1762). En conclusión, la puntuación es una doctrina importante para los gramáticos y su justificación se ha formulado en varios términos. Para muchos otros, por el contrario, los signos de puntuación se utilizan de manera subjetiva por lo que la creación de reglas de uso de la puntuación no es del todo necesaria.

~~111 Véase la Tabla 1 incluida en el apartado 3 “Corpus y Metodología”. 112 Las traducciones de los textos de las gramáticas son mías.~~

~~357~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

6.2. Teorías de la puntuación Como mencionamos en el capítulo 5 de este resumen, las teorías de la puntuación son fundamentalmente tres: la retórica o elocutiva, la gramatical o sintáctica y la hermenéutica. En nuestro corpus de estudio, 229 de las 238 ediciones que lo componen abogan por una combinación de las dos primeras teorías, es decir, de la retórica y la gramatical. Asimismo, en 94 ediciones de estas 229 se defiende dicha combinación de teorías porque esta ayuda a transmitir más fácilmente el sentido del texto. La teoría hermenéutica fue defendida únicamente en cinco ediciones y, en menor medida, también encontramos ediciones en las que se abogó por una única teoría: la gramatical, como por ejemplo en el caso de Jones (1771), o la retórica, como en Anon. (1770-1771) y McGowan (1773). Finalmente, debemos mencionar que en la gramática de Mennye (1785) no se mentaron ninguna de las teorías de la puntuación. A pesar del reconocimiento de ambas teorías en la gran mayoría de las ediciones estudiadas, algunos autores como Harrison (1794) y Crocker (1772) admitieron la primacía de una de ellas en lo concerniente al grupo ‘primario’ de signos de puntuación compuesto por la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos, el punto, el signo de interrogación, el de exclamación y los paréntesis. Así, mientras Harrison (1794: 99) defendía la primacía de la teoría gramatical aduciendo que la “primera y principal función de los signos de puntuación [primarios] es elucidar la estructura y significado de las oraciones del texto”, Crocker (1772: 62) hacía evidente su preferencia por la teoría retórica al explicarla en el cuerpo del texto y relegar la explicación gramatical a una nota a pie de página. En lo referente a las explicaciones retóricas que los autores dieron, destacamos: la cadencia, entonación y pausas respiratorias, incluyendo en esta última la analogía entre las figuras musicales y los signos de puntuación. A su vez, en cuanto a las explicaciones gramaticales dadas por los autores, destacamos la distinción de las frases y de sus partes constituyentes. En cuanto a las explicaciones retóricas, comenzamos analizando la teoría de las pausas respiratorias. Para más de diez autores los signos de puntuación deben utilizarse en el discurso, en primer y último término, para respirar. Sin embargo, aunque los signos indiquen pausas, difieren en su duración. Es decir, la coma es una pausa respiratoria corta a diferencia del punto que es la más larga. Al distinguir las pausas más largas de las más cortas, los autores establecieron, a modo de norma general, la teoría de la

~~358~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

gradación de las pausas por medio de la cual se concluyó que “el punto es una pausa que duplica la pausa de los dos puntos; los dos puntos duplican la pausa del punto y coma, y esta última duplica la de la coma” (Lowth, 1762: 158). Asimismo, otros treinta autores como Fisher (1753: 57) intentaron fijar la teoría de la duración exacta de cada pausa, que determinaba que “el lector debe parar ante una coma y contar ‘uno’; ante un punto y coma y contar ‘dos’; ante los dos puntos y contar tres; ante el punto y contar cuatro”. Esta teoría fue adoptada y modificada hasta cierto punto por otros autores como Crocker (1772: 62) y Wright (1794: 69) quienes establecieron un paralelismo entre las pausas y las sílabas: “la coma es igual a una sílaba; el punto y coma, a dos sílabas; los dos puntos, a tres; el punto, a cuatro sílabas”. Muchos autores manifestaron su apego a una de estas teorías, es decir, a la teoría de gradación de las pausas defendida por Lowth (1762) o a la teoría de la duración exacta de las pausas defendida por Fisher (1753), aunque, en líneas generales, los autores admitieron que ninguna de estas teorías es exacta porque las pausas en el discurso oral no pueden circunscribirse a reglas (Harrison, 1794: 107-108). La analogía entre la música y la puntuación se citó en las gramáticas analizadas. Autores como Maittaire (1712: 201) afirmaron que la música es un arte vinculado a la gramática. Algunos establecieron el paralelismo aduciendo que los signos de puntuación ‘primarios’ tienen una proporción musical entre ellos (Wise, 1772: 26); otros afirmaron que los signos de puntuación ‘primarios’ tienen una proporción entre ellos idéntica a la que las figuras musicales tienen entre sí (Lowth, 1762: 158) porque las figuras más largas duplican las más cortas. Por consiguiente, mediante esta analogía los autores reforzaron la teoría de la gradación de las pausas. Con respecto a la cadencia y la entonación, varios autores aseveran que los signos de puntuación indican, también, patrones de cadencia y/o entonación por lo que todo aquel que utilice la puntuación deberá ser conocedor del tono asignado a cada uno de los signos. En líneas generales, los autores alcanzaron un consenso en el patrón entonativo de la coma al establecer que el tono de la voz no debe elevarse en demasía porque, en realidad, la coma es “casi imperceptible en la lectura” (Pape, 1790: 9). El punto y coma al igual que los dos puntos tienen un patrón entonativo descendente. Asimismo, el punto tiene un patrón entonativo descendente más marcado que el de los dos signos anteriores porque, al estar ubicado al término de la frase, el punto debe indicar conclusión

~~359~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

(Ash, 1761: xxii-xxiii). Para catorce autores los signos de interrogación y exclamación denotan una modulación de la voz y ambos signos tienen un patrón entonativo ascendente (ibid). En lo referente a las explicaciones sintácticas o gramaticales que los autores dieron, destacamos la distinción de las frases y sus constituyentes. Muchos fueron los autores que explicaron la diferencia entre oraciones simples y compuestas porque, según algunos, “debemos estar familiarizados con la naturaleza misma de la frase, las partes que la componen y los grados de conexión entre estas con el objetivo de emplear los signos de puntuación correctamente” (Lowth, 1762: 159- 160) y “componer, escribir o leer bien un discurso sobre cualquier materia” (Martin, 1754: 128). De ahí la diferencia entre la coma o la “división más pequeña de una frase” (Bingham, 1790: 56) y los dos puntos o “la división más larga de la misma” (ibid). Los autores que emplearon el término ‘sense’ o sentido se referían a si la frase estaba acabada o no en términos semánticos. Por ejemplo, el paréntesis es definido como un signo de puntuación que introduce una oración corta en el cuerpo de una más larga a la cual no afecta y, a la vez, ilustra (Ash, 1796: xxii). Como mencionamos al inicio de esta sección, en 94 ediciones escritas por 31 autores se empleó el término ‘sense’ con un sentido más específico: el sentido es el elemento clave en el texto y la puntuación debe utilizarse para clarificarlo y evitar, así, ambigüedades (Wise, 1766: 26). Sin embargo, ya en el siglo diecisiete autores de tratados de puntuación como Lewis (1675) y Anon. (1680) al igual que maestros, traductores y gramáticos, entre otros, admitieron que la coherencia del texto depende del uso correcto de los signos de puntuación (Salmon, 1988: 288-293; Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2010: 45). La teoría hermenéutica, como adelantamos al inicio, fue defendida en cinco ediciones, concretamente en las escritas por Buchanan (1762: 49) y Anon. or Hall (ECEG) (1789: 49-50). Estos autores emplearon la analogía entre algunas partes del cuerpo humano y los signos de puntuación para ilustrar la idea de que la escritura es la imagen del habla. Según esta analogía, cuando conversamos utilizamos nuestras manos, brazos y cabeza –entre otros‒ que transmiten información al oyente. Al ser la reproducción escrita de una conversación, el texto escrito adapta los componentes pragmáticos a través de los signos de puntuación para indicar las pausas a realizar en la lectura, evitar confusión en el sentido del texto y, sobre todo, transmitir las emociones del emisor al lector (Buchanan, 1762:

~~360~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

49). Buchanan (1762), sin embargo, no fue pionero en el empleo de esta analogía porque Ben Jonson (1572-1637) ya había utilizado el cuerpo humano como tropo para explicar la teoría de que el texto escrito es un todo orgánico. Para ello, Jonson estableció un paralelismo entre la respiración en la lectura oral y la sangre con el fin de exponer el papel de la puntuación retórica: la sangre al igual que los signos de puntuación están dispersos por todo el cuerpo –humano y escrito, respectivamente– y es concretamente en cada uno de los miembros o constituyentes de la oración donde tenemos que respirar (van den Berg, 1995). Como podemos observar, ambos autores declaran que el texto escrito es un cuerpo en sí mismo por lo que los signos de puntuación plasman los matices semánticos que el orador intenta transmitir, de ahí la importancia de combinar las teorías retórica y gramatical de la puntuación. No obstante, dado que el texto escrito es la “imagen del habla o discurso oral”, la escritura está subyugada a la oralidad y, en consecuencia, la función retórica de la puntuación prima sobre la gramatical. Por último, en lo que respecta a los autores que defendieron una o incluso ninguna teoría de la puntuación, debemos resaltar que estos han sido la excepción y no la norma. Por un lado, Jones (1771) fue el único autor que expresó su predilección por una única teoría de la puntuación, la gramatical, porque los ‘grammatical points’ o “puntos gramaticales” –la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos y el punto– señalan únicamente las cuatro partes de un periodo (Jones, 1771: 27). Por otro lado, Anon. (1770-1771: 112) y McGowan (1773: 124-125) manifestaron su preferencia por la teoría retórica de la puntuación y, además, consideraron que se debe prestar especial atención al sentido del texto para evitar así ambigüedades. Al explicar el uso de los signos de puntuación como pausas en la lectura y que evitan, a su vez, construcciones sintácticas y semánticas confusas, McGowan (1773) recurrió a la analogía entre el cuerpo humano y los signos de puntuación típica de la teoría hermenéutica. Sin embargo, a diferencia de Buchanan (1762), McGowan (1773) definió seis signos de puntuación en términos retóricos y, además, no reconoció que la puntuación transmite los matices semánticos del escritor. Finalmente, Mennye (1785) es el único autor que ofreció un inventario de signos de puntuación sin añadir explicación alguna de los signos expuestos. No obstante, al contrario de lo que podría parecer, Mennye (1785) no es un caso aislado porque, según Salmon (1988: 299), desde el siglo dieciséis al diecinueve,

~~361~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

algunos gramáticos se dedicaban a listar los signos de puntuación sin describirlos posteriormente. En conclusión, los autores estudiados han demostrado que la combinación de teorías de la puntuación es la clave para garantizar la comprensión correcta del texto por parte del lector.

6.3. Ubicación de la discusión sobre la puntuación La discusión sobre la puntuación fue ubicada en diferentes secciones en las gramáticas analizadas. En líneas generales, podemos concluir que las secciones fueron las siguientes: - En ninguna sección específica - En dos o tres secciones - En la secciones tituladas ‘Sintaxis’, ‘Sobre las frases’, después de ‘Frases’ y ‘Ortografía’ - En las secciones tituladas ‘Cantidad y Acento’, ‘Reglas para la Lectura y el Habla’, ‘Lectura’ y ‘Prosodia’ - En las secciones tituladas ‘Suplemento’, ‘Apéndice’ y ‘Material Final’ - En las secciones tituladas ‘Sílabas’ y ‘Letras’

De las secciones listadas, la titulada ‘Sobre las frases’ equivale a la de ‘Sintaxis’. Cabe destacar que el tratamiento de la puntuación en una única sección de la gramática no implica que los autores agrupen los signos de puntuación en un solo grupo.

6.3.1. Puntuación situada en ninguna sección específica En total, en 59 de 60 ediciones de 22 gramáticas escritas por 22 autores la puntuación se ubicó en la discusión general sobre gramática y, más concretamente, al principio o al final de la misma. La totalidad de los autores defendió una combinación de las teorías retórica y gramatical de la puntuación y, entre estos autores, ocho declararon que la puntuación es un arte aplicable tanto a la escritura como a la oralidad. En vista de la combinación de teorías de la puntuación, es probable que para los veintidos autores la sección general sobre gramática sea una sección más neutral que las tituladas ‘Sintaxis’ o ‘Prosodia’, por ejemplo. Al inicio de la discusión sobre gramática, muchos autores declaran

~~362~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

que la gramática está compuesta por cuatro partes: ortografía, etimología, sintaxis y prosodia (Wilson, 1769: 1). Para Ash (1761), la puntuación es una parte elemental o introductoria a la doctrina de la gramática y por esta razón ubica las discusiones sobre la puntuación y las letras en la introducción. Al final de la discusión sobre gramática, muchos autores incluyeron la puntuación como una sección aparte. Raine (1771), Corbet (1784), Bicknell (1790), Bingham (1790) y Coar (1796), por ejemplo, ubicaron sus discusiones sobre puntuación inmediatamente después de las discusiones sobre letras mayúsculas (Coar, 1796), cantidad y acento (Raine, 1771), énfasis y cadencia (Bingham, 1790), retórica y prosodia (Bicknell, 1790) o lectura (Corbet, 1784) por lo que podríamos inferir que para estos autores la puntuación está relacionada con cada una de estas materias. Sin embargo, la puntuación y el resto de materias se trataron individualmente o de forma separada por lo que no podemos afirmar nuestra inferencia categóricamente.

6.3.2. Puntuación situada en dos o tres secciones En 15 ediciones de seis gramáticas diferentes escritas por cinco autores – Greenwood (1711), Maittaire (1712), Gough (1760) Ash (1785) and Fogg (1792- 1796)– la discusión sobre puntuación fue ubicada en dos secciones tales como: (i) Sintaxis y Ortografía, (ii) Prosodia y Sintaxis, (iii) Gramática y Sintaxis, (iv) Introducción y Apéndice, (v) sobre Contracción y Disertaciones gramaticales. A modo de resumen diremos que muchos de estos autores explican los signos de puntuación en dos o tres secciones diferentes de acuerdo a la naturaleza misma de los signos. Por tanto, para Greenwood (1711: 225, 227), por ejemplo, los ‘points’ o ‘puntos’ deben ser explicados en la sección de sintaxis mientras que las ‘marks’ o ‘marcas’, en ortografía.

6.3.3. Puntuación situada en secciones sintácticas y ortográficas 30 autores de 108 ediciones de 32 gramáticas en total incluyeron sus discusiones sobre puntuación en secciones sintácticas y ortográficas que, al fin y al cabo, refuerzan la naturaleza escrita de la puntuación. En cinco ediciones la discusión sobre puntuación se situó en la sección ‘Sobre las frases’ y en otras 42 se situó justo detrás de la misma por lo que es muy probable que para sus autores la puntuación estuviese relacionada con esta sección. En 22 ediciones la discusión se

~~363~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

situó en ‘Sintaxis’ mientras que en las 39 ediciones restantes se situó en ‘Ortografía’. A tenor de las cifras expuestas, podríamos concluir que la puntuación está más relacionada con la sintaxis que con la ortografía. De los treinta autores, consideramos que el razonamiento de Martin (1754) expone con claridad por qué la puntuación debe ser tratada en secciones como ‘Ortografía’ o ‘Sintaxis: “la puntuación es el arte de la composición” (Martin, 1754: 128) y, por ello, la doctrina de las frases y los periodos está ligada a ella. De ahí que los diferentes ‘puntos’ y ‘marcas’ “dividan el discurso en frases y sus partes constituyentes” (Burn, 1766: 181). Aunque todos los autores resaltaron la función sintáctica de la puntuación, la función retórica también fue tenida en cuenta ya que, como Coote (1788: 260) manifestó, lo que subyace tras el uso de los signos de puntuación es “la indicación de las pausas que la pronunciación y el sentido del texto requieren”. En este sentido, diez autores en total hicieron hincapié en que los signos de puntuación deben transmitir el sentido correcto del texto. En cuanto a los autores que ubicaron sus discusiones sobre puntuación en la sección dedicada a la ortografía, Fisher (1753) y Wilson (1792) justificaron su inclusión en dicha sección. Según estos, los ‘stops’ y ‘marks’, o las ‘pausas’ y las ‘marcas’, deben ser explicados junto a las letras en la sección de ‘Ortografía’ porque son elementos básicos de la gramática y, por ende, deben ser tratados al inicio para poder discutir posteriormente materias más complejas como la sintaxis. De este modo, el alumno estudia la gramática de forma gradual (Fisher, 1753: 1-2). Curiosamente, cuatro de los treinta autores, más concretamente Buchanan, Anon. o Hall (ECEG), Jones y McGowan, defendieron la teoría hermenéutica de la puntuación o bien una única teoría: la retórica o la gramátical. En el caso de la teoría hermenéutica, como ya hemos mencionado en la sección 6.2. “Teorías de la puntuación”, Buchanan y Anon. o Hall (ECEG) defendieron esta teoría y, en vez de ubicar la discusión sobre puntuación en las secciones tituladas ‘Retórica’ o ‘Sintaxis’ para reforzar la importancia de ambos enfoques en la puntuación, decidieron ubicarla en ‘Ortografía’ y en ‘Sintaxis’. En cuanto a Jones (1771), aunque su tratamiento de la puntuación se reduce a cuatro líneas en total, podríamos decir que la ubicación fue coherente con la teoría defendida porque explicó sus “gramatical points” o ‘puntos gramaticales’ en términos puramente gramaticales dentro de la sección de ‘Sintaxis’. Por su parte, McGowan (1773), quien apoyó únicamente la teoría retórica de la puntuación, situó la discusión

~~364~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

sobre puntuación en la sección ‘sobre Frases’ en vista, quizás, de que los signos de puntuación son convenciones gráficas que utilizamos en las oraciones. Por último, Mennye (1785), cuyo inventario de signos de puntuación estaba desprovisto de explicación alguna, situó la “discusión” sobre puntuación en ‘Ortografía’. Partiendo de la base de que su título reza: “los puntos, acentos, referencias, &c.” (Mennye, 1784: 74), la ubicación podría sugerir que el común denominador de los distintos tipos de signos de puntuación incluidos en su inventario es su naturaleza escrita.

6.3.4. Puntuación situada en secciones retóricas y prosódicas Nueve autores situaron la discusión sobre puntuación en secciones relacionadas con la prosodia y la retórica en 22 ediciones de 10 gramáticas. Dentro de la sección podemos encontrar no solo la puntuación sino también materias como pronunciación, énfasis, versificación y acento. Meikleham (1781), por ejemplo, definió la prosodia como “la verdadera pronunciación de las palabras; abarcando el acento, la cantidad y el énfasis” y trató la puntuación después de tratar otras materias como la cantidad, el énfasis y la cadencia. A tenor de los argumentos utilizados por los nueve autores, parece que los signos de puntuación están vinculados primeramente a las pausas respiratorias en la lectura en voz alta y en silencio. Según Story (1783: 66), por ejemplo, la puntuación es “el arte de distinguir en la escritura, por medio de marcas, las pausas en la frase”. De hecho, la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos y el punto se definen, primeramente, como pausas respiratorias en la lectura que ayudan, al mismo tiempo, a indicar el sentido en el texto escrito (Corbet, 1743: 92-93; Smetham, 1774: 27; Story, 1783: 66; Murray, 1799a: 219-220). Así, la función secundaria de las pausas es la transmisión del sentido del texto por medio de la distinción de los miembros que constituyen la frase. Siguiendo esta línea, los nueve autores abogan por la combinación de las teorías retórica y gramatical de la puntuación. Curiosamente, a pesar de que la gran mayoría de ellos presentó un inventario de signos amplio en el que se clasifican los signos en distintos grupos, estos fueron tratados en la sección retórica o prosódica. En conclusión, si comparamos los treinta autores que ubicaron la discusión sobre puntuación en secciones gramaticales y ortográficas con los nueve autores que la ubicaron en secciones retóricas, podríamos concluir que la función gramatical pasó a ser más importante que la retórica.

~~365~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

6.3.5. Puntuación situada en forma de apéndice o suplemento En 30 ediciones de 11 gramáticas escritas por diez autores la puntuación fue analizada al final en forma de suplemento o apéndice. Ninguno de los diez autores justificó esta ubicación por lo que, sea cual sea la razón, podríamos afirmar que la puntuación, junto con otras materias, se consideraba como información adicional. No obstante, aunque Newbery (1745) situó su discusión sobre puntuación al final de su obra, él no consideró que la puntuación fuese secundaria a otros componentes gramaticales. En lo que respecta a la teoría de la puntuación defendida por estos diez autores, nueve de ellos abogaron por una combinación de las teorías gramatical y retórica y, para ser más exactos, siete de ellos defendieron esta combinación porque la puntuación puede transmitir así el sentido del texto correctamente (véase Newbery, 1745: 119; Anon. 1746: 151; Anon. o Newbery (ECEG), 1776: 44; Ireland, 1784: 276; Harrison, 1794: 99; Bullen, 1797: 106). La excepción es Anon. (1770-1771) quien abogó exclusivamente por la teoría de la puntuación retórica. En vista de la teoría defendida, inicialmente creímos que este autor ubicaría su discusión sobre puntuación en secciones retóricas como ‘Prosodia’, ‘Lectura’ o ‘Cantidad y Acento’, entre otras posibles. Por esta razón, podríamos concluir que la sección escogida por el autor no se ajusta a la teoría defendida.

6.3.6. Puntuación situada en las secciones tituladas ‘Sílabas’ y ‘Letras’ Tres autores en total –Metcalfe (1777), Ward (1777) y Miller (1795)– situaron la puntuación en las secciones tituladas ‘Sílabas’ y ‘Letras’. Aunque podríamos haber unido estas tres gramáticas a las que ubicaron la puntuación en las secciones de ‘Prosodia’ y ‘Ortografía’, consideramos que era más apropiado tratarlas por separado dado que los títulos mismos difieren. El motivo por el cual podríamos haber incluido estas gramáticas en ‘Prosodia’ y ‘Ortografía’ es que, como Ward (1777: 2) indica, la ortografía está relacionada con las letras; la prosodia, con las sílabas; la etimología, con la derivación de las palabras; la sintaxis, con la unión de palabras en frases. Metcalfe (1777) y Ward (1777) incluyeron la discusión sobre puntuación en la sección ‘Sílabas’ a diferencia de Miller (1795) que la incluyó en ‘Letras’. A pesar de que los dos primeros autores coincidieron en el título, las secciones eran diferentes en realidad porque para Ward (1777) las sílabas están relacionadas con

~~366~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

la prosodia mientras que para Metcalfe (1777), con la ortografía. Como resultado, para el primero la puntuación es retórica por naturaleza; para el segundo, ortográfica o gráfica por naturaleza. Miller (1795), a su vez, coincidió con Metcalfe (1777) al considerar que la puntuación es ortográfica. Asimismo, los tres autores reconocieron la importancia de las llamadas ‘marcas’, o grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación que, en general, fueron descritas en términos gráficos por su relación con el texto escrito.

6.3.7. Cambio de ubicación de la discusión sobre puntuación en posteriores ediciones Cinco autores –Greenwood (1737), Buchanan (1767), Brittain (1788), Crocker (1775) y Webster (1784, 1785)– ubicaron la discusión sobre puntuación en diferentes secciones en posteriores ediciones de sus gramáticas. A excepción de Brittain (1788), el cambio de sección conllevó otros cambios en lo que a inventario de signos y teoría de la puntuación se refiere.

6.3.8. Conclusiones Al formar parte del discurso oral y escrito, la puntuación se explica en secciones retóricas y gramaticales, de ahí su ubicación en ‘Ortografía’, ‘Sintaxis’ y ‘Prosodia’. A grandes rasgos, la discusión sobre puntuación se ubicó en secciones sintácticas u ortográficas en 108 ediciones. Por el contrario, la discusión se ubicó en secciones dedicadas a la lectura y la oralidad en 22 ediciones. En 30 ediciones se situó al final de la obra en forma de apéndice o suplemento y, además, en otras 60 ediciones no se situó en una sección específica sino en la discusión general sobre gramática. A modo de resumen, el siguiente gráfico circular muestra los porcentajes que cada una de las secciones mencionadas representa:

~~367~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Gráfico circular 1. Secciones y porcentajes~~

Como ya hemos mencionado, los autores que decidieron situar la puntuación en la discusión general sobre gramática o en el apéndice podrían haber considerado que esas secciones eran más neutrales. En cualquier caso, la inclusión de un número mayor de signos de puntuación podría explicar por qué los autores decidieron situar la puntuación en secciones ortográficas. Es decir, la mayoría de los autores presentaron un inventario amplio de ‘marcas’ cuyas funciones eran descritas en términos gráficos. En consecuencia, dado que las ‘marcas’ tienen naturaleza escrita, la sección ortográfica prevalece sobre la retórica. No obstante, la ubicación en secciones sintácticas y ortográficas no ha afectado a los llamados ‘puntos’ ya que estos se han descrito en términos retóricos principalmente, como veremos en la sección dedicada a los términos genéricos.

6.4. Sistemas de puntuación Hemos clasificado los sistemas de puntuación recopilados en nuestro corpus en cinco ‘Branches’ o ‘Ramas’ de acuerdo al agrupamiento de los signos de puntuación en cada gramática. En la primera ‘Rama’ se encuentran los sistemas que agrupan los signos de puntuación en un único grupo; en la segunda ‘Rama’, los que reúnen los signos en dos grupos; en la tercera ‘Rama’, los que agrupan los signos en tres grupos; en la cuarta ‘Rama’, los que reúnen los signos en cuatro

~~368~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

grupos; en la quinta ‘Rama’, los que agrupan los signos en cinco grupos. Por “grupo” nos referimos al conjunto de signos de puntuación que comparten la misma función como, por ejemplo, el paréntesis y los signos de interrogación y exclamación que forman el grupo de “‘puntos’ que denotan una modulación de la voz” (Lowth, 1762: 172) (s.v. ‘Rama’ 2, tipo a) 2 en el apéndice A). Asimismo, un “tipo” es el modelo de puntuación que cada autor crea. Dentro de cada una de las ‘Ramas’, observamos que hay algunos tipos de sistemas de puntuación que comparten el mismo número de signos de puntuación pero difieren en los signos que incluyen y en su clasificación. Pongamos como ejemplo los sistemas de puntuación de Anon. (1770-1771), McGowan (1773), Burr (1797) y Stapleton (1797). Los tres primeros autores defendieron exactamente el mismo sistema de puntuación, clasificado dentro de la ‘Rama’ 1, tipo 2, en el que se reúnen la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos, el punto y los signos de interrogación y exclamación en un solo grupo denominado ‘puntos’, ‘marcas’ o ‘pausas en la lectura’. Por el contrario, Stapleton (1797) considera que los signos mencionados deben clasificarse en dos grupos: en el primer grupo se encuentran los cuatro primeros signos de puntuación enumerados y se utilizan para dividir un discurso en periodos y expresar pausas; en el segundo, los dos signos restantes son ‘puntos’ “suficientemente explicados por sus nombres” (Stapleton, 1797: 3). Por tanto, a diferencia de Anon. (1770-1771), McGowan (1773) y Burr (1797), Stapleton (1797) se incluye en la ‘Rama’ 2 a) tipo 1. Con respecto al apéndice A, debemos comentar que tanto los términos como el aglutinamiento de los signos de puntuación en una ‘celda’ son los que cada autor ha utilizado. Es decir, Ash (1761) aglutinó y denominó al asterisco (*) y obelisco († ‡ ǁ) (sic) como “varias notas” (Ash, 1761: xxiv), de ahí su reunión en una única celda dentro del sistema de puntuación presentado por Ash (s.v. ‘Rama’ 2, tipo 5 a). A diferencia de Ash (1761), Stirling (1735: no p.) enumeró y describió los signos anteriores por separado, es decir, consideró que el asterisco y el obelisco son dos signos de puntuación diferentes y, por ende, se localizan en sendas celdas dentro del sistema de puntuación que se presenta. La clasificación de los signos de puntuación que hemos llevado a cabo se basa en la realizada por el autor aunque debemos destacar también que hemos encontrado peculiaridades. Muchos autores han distinguido entre dos o más categorías por lo que no trataron los signos de puntuación de igual manera. La ‘Rama’ 2 contiene siete categorías etiquetadas

~~369~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

como “a), b), c), d), e), f) y g)” y el grupo ‘primario’ de signos de puntuación es diferente en cada una de ellas. Por “primario” nos referimos al grupo de signos de puntuación tratado como un grupo separado, fijo y que comparte la misma función, a diferencia del grupo de signos de puntuación tratado como un grupo ‘secundario’ o extra. De esta forma, dentro de la ‘Rama’ 2, la categoría (a) comprende los tipos de sistemas de puntuación que tienen cuatro signos primarios; la categoría (b), los que tienen cinco signos primarios; la categoría (c), los que tienen seis signos primarios, la categoría (d), los que tienen siete signos primarios; la categoría (e), los que tienen ocho signos primarios; la categoría (f), los que tienen diez signos primarios; la categoría (g), los que tienen diecisiete signos primarios. Hemos aplicado la misma metodología a la ‘Rama’ 3. Asimismo, en la gran mayoría de tipos de sistemas de puntuación el grupo fijo o establecido de signos de puntuación es seguido por el símbolo (+) y cuatro guiones cortos (----). Hemos recurrido a los guiones para indicar que el grupo de signos de puntuación varía según el autor. A modo de ilustración, consideremos la ‘Rama’ 3. En ella se encuentran ocho categorías –“a), b), c), d), e), f), g) and h)”- y la primera de estas se representa como “a) 4 + 2 + ----”. En este caso en concreto, el grupo ‘primario’ de signos de puntuación comprende cuatro signos; otros dos signos forman un grupo diferente y el tercer grupo no está establecido, de ahí los guiones. Una vez explicado el proceso de recopilación de los sistemas de puntuación, seguimos comentando el número total de sistemas compilados en nuestro corpus. Dentro de la ‘Rama’ 1 se hallan 8 tipos de sistemas de puntuación; dentro de la ‘Rama’ 2, 33 tipos; dentro de la ‘Rama’ 3, 26 tipos; dentro de la ‘Rama’ 4, 2 tipos y, dentro de la ‘Rama’ 5, un tipo. En resumen, hemos compilado 71 tipos de sistemas de puntuación en las 238 ediciones que forman nuestro corpus. Hemos emprendido otro análisis más de los sistemas de puntuación: hemos estudiado su presencia a lo largo del siglo dieciocho. En líneas generales, como se aprecia en la Tabla 2, la ‘Rama’ 2 fue la más apoyada por los autores tanto en términos de cifras como de presencia continuada a lo largo del siglo en cuestión. Podríamos deducir que el gran apoyo conferido a esta rama se debe a la simplicidad de los sistemas de puntuación que comprende ya que, en vez de categorizar los signos de puntuación de acuerdo a tres, cuatro o cinco criterios, la ‘Rama’ 2 los categoriza de acuerdo a dos.

~~370~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Tabla 2. Número de ediciones por décadas~~

~~1700- 1711- 1721- 1731- 1741- 1751- 1761- 1771- 1781- 1791- Nº total~~

~~10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1800 de~~

~~ediciones~~

~~Rama 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 3 13~~

~~Rama 2 0 6 1 5 7 5 19 22 34 49 148~~

~~Rama 3 0 1 2 2 0 4 13 12 8 20 62~~

~~Rama 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 5 13~~

~~Rama 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2~~

~~Total 0 7 3 8 9 11 35 41 47 77~~

De los 71 sistemas de puntuación compilados, solo 8 fueron defendidos por más de un autor y, curiosamente, los dos sistemas más defendidos se encuentran en la ‘Rama’ 2, es decir, en la rama que más adeptos consiguió. Los dos sistemas en cuestión son los ideados por Lowth (1762) y Fisher (1753) con siete y tres adeptos en total respectivamente. En ambos sistemas los signos de puntuación se dividen en dos grupos. En el caso de Lowth (1762) los signos se clasifican en, por un lado, el grupo de cuatro ‘puntos’ (la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos y el punto) y, por otro, el grupo de “otros tres puntos” (sic) que denotan una modulación de la voz (el paréntesis y los signos de exclamación e interrogación). En el caso de Fisher (1753), los signos se clasifican en, por un lado, seis ‘pausas’ empleadas como intervalos en la lectura (la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos y los signos de exclamación e interrogación) y, por otro, 18 ‘marcas’ (el paréntesis, las comillas, el guión y el apóstrofo, entre otros). Cabe destacar que los autores que abogaron por el sistema de puntuación de Lowth no siguieron necesariamente los términos y las descripciones que él utilizó. Por ejemplo, a la hora de denominar el grupo que comprende los cuatro primeros signos de puntuación, Ward (1766), Anon. (1788b) y Bingham (1790) emplearon los términos ‘marcas’ y ‘pausas’ en vez de ‘puntos’. Igualmente, Ward (1766) admitió la existencia de los tres signos de puntuación que conforman el segundo grupo pero no hizo mención alguna de que se utilizasen para denotar una modulación diferente de la voz. En conclusión, la supremacía del sistema de puntuación creado por Lowth (1762) y, en menor medida Fisher (1753), confirma nuestra inferencia: los autores prefieren sistemas

~~371~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

de puntuación simples. En este sentido, el mismo Lowth (1762) comentó que: “Si se inventase un número mayor de signos de puntuación para expresar todas las pausas posibles en pronunciación, la doctrina se volvería difícil y el uso de los signos no ayudaría al lector sino que le ‘cohibiría’” (Lowth, 1762: 156).

6.5. Funciones de los signos de puntuación El número total de signos de puntuación extraídos en nuestro corpus es 29 y en la siguiente tabla exponemos la totalidad de signos junto a los términos que los autores utilizaron para designarlos.

~~Marks , comma incision fragment~~

~~; semicolon half colon semmicolon semi-colon half-colon~~

~~: colon~~

~~. full stop point period full-stop full-point full point~~

- hyphen note of division dash (connexion) conjunction caret note of ^ induction apostrophe apostrophus apostrophy apostraphe ’ inverted turned quotation quotations comma commas “ or “” inverted double sign of a quotation- commas apostrophe quotation marks

~~() parenthesis interposition parenthasis~~

~~parathesis exposition chrochets crotchets~~

~~[] brackets hooks crotchet crochets~~

~~☞ index hand fore-finger fore finger pointing pointing † obelisk spit dagger oblisk (sic)~~

~~§ section division sign of a section asterisk asterism star * paragraph sign of a ¶ paragraph~~

~~372~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~¡ irony~~

~~circumflex mean ^ dialysis diaeresis diaresis dieresis~~

~~¨ diaerisis diresis diëresis~~

~~accent acute treble accute short ´ accent base grave ` breve short short time ˘ breve short short time ˇ long long time circumflex ˉ parallels parallel lines section~~

~~ǁ ǁ parallel parallel-lines parallel section notes lines~~

~~{} braces~~

~~” double apostrophe~~

~~point of point of ecphonesis wonder exclamation interjection admiration exclamation~~

~~! pause of exclamation- exclamation mark of (sign of) admiration admiration point point exclamation exclamation~~

~~note of note of admiration exclamation~~

~~dash hyphen stroke line long line break~~

~~ellipsis blank black line small line double period ― omission elipsis pause ellipses elleipsis~~

~~Tabla 3. Número total de signos de puntuación y los términos utilizados para designarlos~~

En lo que a cuestiones gráficas se refiere, los autores llegaron a un consenso en cuanto a los símbolos que representan a los signos de puntuación salvo los símbolos del paréntesis y las comillas. Según Stirling (1735), tanto el símbolo () como [] representan a los paréntesis por lo que ambos son intercambiables. En

~~373~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

cuanto a las comillas, aunque su función fue consensuada por los autores, el símbolo que las representa presentó opiniones discordantes. En total, las comillas aparecen en 58 de los 71 sistemas de puntuación. En 28 de los 58 sistemas se presentan las dobles comillas tanto a principio como a final de frase. Por el contrario, en 23 sistemas se presentan las dobles comillas a inicio o a final de frase. En los siete sistemas restantes se presentan tanto las comillas simples como las dobles. Además, aunque muy raramente, hemos encontrado símbolos innovadores creados por algunos autores para representar las notas de referencia, la elipsis y la ironía. En lo que respecta a las notas de referencia, Anon. o Gildon y Brightland (ECEG) (1711: 151) sugieren que el símbolo (ǂ) representa al obelisco. En cuanto a la elipsis, el guión largo se utiliza para indicar la omisión de letras, palabras y frases. No obstante, algunos autores idearon símbolos novedosos para representar la elipsis como, por ejemplo, dos o tres asteriscos (Elphinston, 1765: 194-195; Harrison 1794: 113; 1800: 68), tres puntos suspensivos (Elphinston, 1765: 194-195; Coar: 1796: 222) y tres guiones cortos (Smetham, 1774: 30 y Ash, 1796: xxii). Finalmente, en cuanto a la ironía, Loughton (1749: 134) y Greenwood (1729) opinaron que el signo de exclamación invertido (¡) podría ser el símbolo adecuado para representarla, aduciendo que los escritores alemanes lo emplean con este fin (Greenwood, 1729: 242). En realidad, el interés por representar la ironía data de los siglos dieciséis y diecisiete cuando autores como Wilkins (1668) y Cooper (1687) trataron el tema (Salmon, 1988: 288). Con respecto a la(s) función(es) asignada(s) a los signos de puntuación, hemos analizado cada una de ellas con el objetivo de encontrar similitudes entre los 71 sistemas de puntuación. Básicamente, cuatro signos de puntuación están presentes en los 71 sistemas y son: el punto, los dos puntos, el punto y coma y la coma. En términos generales, los autores de las cinco ‘Ramas’ llegaron a un acuerdo en las funciones de once signos de puntuación: la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos, los signos de interrogación y exclamación, el paréntesis, el apóstrofo, el guión, las comillas, el guión largo y las notas de referencia. También hemos reunido las reglas de puntuación defendidas en, al menos, tres de las cinco ‘Ramas’ porque, en vista de que las ‘Ramas’ uno, dos y tres son las más numerosas, los usos codificados de los signos de puntuación se encuentran en ellas principalmente.

~~374~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Como resultado, hemos logrado recabar las reglas de puntuación más repetidas de los 24 signos de puntuación.~~

6.6. Términos genéricos A partir del análisis etimológico de la terminología genérica empleada por los autores hemos observado cuán inclinado está un autor hacia un modelo clásico o, por el contrario, hacia un modelo vernáculo. Posteriormente, trazamos una comparación entre los sistemas de partes del discurso compilados por Michael (1970) en su estudio y los sistemas de puntuación aquí recopilados para comprobar hasta qué punto los autores fueron consistentes en su postura hacia una gramática latinizada o bien una gramática vernácula. Los términos genéricos presentes en nuestro corpus para denominar los signos de puntuación en general son: ‘stops’, ‘pauses’, ‘points’ y ‘marks’. Hasta los años cuarenta estos fueron los únicos términos que encontramos ya que en 1745 Newbery añadió uno nuevo, el de ‘notes’ (1745: 118), y en 1754 Martin agregó el de ‘characters’ (1754: 128). Asimismo, el término ‘distinction’ fue empleado únicamente por Buchanan (1762), Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789) y Stapleton (1797). De los términos genéricos mencionados, ‘points/stops’ y ‘marks’ fueron los más repetidos en las gramáticas y la aparición de uno u otro depende del inventario y la función de los signos de puntuación. En cifras, a la hora de referirse al grupo ‘primario’ de signos de puntuación –la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos, el punto, los signos de interrogación y exclamación y el paréntesis– el término ‘points’ aparece en un 63’38% de los 71 sistemas de puntuación; el término ‘stops’, en un 64’78% y el término ‘marks’, en un 15’49%. A su vez, a la hora de referirse al grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación –el guión, el apóstrofo, el asterisco y el obelisco, entre otros‒ los autores coincidieron en denominarlo ‘marks’ y, en menor medida, ‘characters’ y ‘notes’. En total, de los 63 sistemas de puntuación que contienen dos o más grupos de signos de puntuación, 49 (77’7%) utiliza el término ‘marks’ y 18 sistemas (28’57%) utiliza los términos ‘characters’ y ‘notes’. Según nuestras cifras, podríamos afirmar que cuanto más definido está el grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación, menos se emplea el término ‘points’, de ahí que solo se haya utilizado en un 36’5% para designar al grupo ‘secundario’. No obstante, algunos autores optaron por no emplear términos genéricos cuando el inventario de signos era amplio. Es decir, si el grupo ‘primario’ de signos de

~~375~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

puntuación era amplio y heterogéneo, los autores optaban por no añadir denominaciones como, por ejemplo, Green (1779) cuyo sistema de puntuación contiene 21 signos de puntuación reunidos en un solo grupo. Si el término genérico debía aplicarse al grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación, entonces los autores eran aun más reacios a utilizarlo, como por ejemplo Coar (1796). En cifras, de los 71 sistemas de puntuación totales, no se emplearon términos genéricos para denominar el grupo ‘primario’ de signos de puntuación en 3 sistemas (un 4’22%) mientras que, de los 63 sistemas de puntuación que contienen dos o más grupos de signos, no se emplearon términos genéricos para denominar el grupo ‘secundario’ de signos en 11 sistemas (17’46%). A modo de ilustración, la gráfica 1 resume y muestra las tendencias en el uso de términos genéricos en nuestro corpus. Debemos comentar también, que las cifras que aparecen a la izquierda de la gráfica representan los 71 sistemas de puntuación a pesar de que hemos redondeado la cifra a 70. Igualmente, las cifras que aparecen sobre cada una de las barras representan el número total de sistemas de puntuación en el que aparece el término genérico en cuestión:

Gráfica 1. Tendencias generales en el uso de los términos genéricos ‘points’, ‘stops’, ‘marks’, ‘characters’ y ‘notes’ al igual que la falta de términos encontrados en las gramáticas inglesas del siglo dieciocho

~~376~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

En lo que a función se refiere, en el caso de los signos denominados ‘points’ o ‘stops’, estos tienen diferentes funciones porque se emplean tanto en la escritura como en la oralidad. Así, como Rodríguez-Álvarez (2010: 46) asegura, los autores “consideran los ‘puntos’ como signos del escritor y para el lector”. Por el contrario, los signos denominados ‘marks’ tienen una única función aplicada a la escritura, o bien a la lectura. Por lo tanto, encontramos una combinación de criterios retóricos, semánticos y sintácticos en el uso de los ‘points/stops’, es decir, en la coma, el punto y coma, los dos puntos y el punto, mientras que en el uso de los ‘marks’ encontramos criterios sintácticos u ortográficos. Por lo tanto, como hemos observado hasta ahora, los signos de puntuación tienen una doble función.

6.6.1. La etimología de la terminología genérica como indicador (in)consciente de la postura del autor hacia la lengua inglesa Con respecto a la etimología de los términos ‘stops’, ‘pauses’, ‘points’, ‘marks’, ‘notes’ y ‘characters’, según el OED (Oxford English Dictionary), solo ‘mark’ y ‘stop’ tienen raíz germánica mientras que los cuatro términos restantes y el término ‘distinction’ tienen raíz (greco)latina. Al referirse al grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación, a diferencia de los maestros de los siglos dieciséis y diecisiete, los del siglo dieciocho prefieren el término germánico ‘marks’ antes que los términos latinos ‘secondary points’, ‘other distinctions’, ‘figures’ y ‘accidental’ quizás como un intento de especialización del grupo ‘secundario’ de signos. En vista de este descubrimiento, podríamos decir que durante el periodo del inglés moderno temprano, o EModE, los autores abogaron por una terminología clásica a la hora de denominar tanto al grupo ‘primario’ como al ‘secundario’ de signos, de ahí el uso extendido de términos como ‘points’, ‘distinctions’, ‘figures’, ‘notes’ y ‘characters’, entre otros. Por el contrario, durante el periodo del inglés moderno tardío, o LModE, los autores abogaron por una terminología de raíz vernácula o, digamos, germánica dado el uso extendido del término ‘marks’ a la hora de referirse al grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación. Sin embargo, encontramos una terminología más equilibrada a la hora de denominar el grupo ‘primario’ de signos porque, a tenor de las cifras anteriormente mencionadas, tanto el término latino ‘points’ como el germánico ‘stops’ eran casi intercambiables.

~~377~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Dado que el uso de los términos ‘points’ y ‘stops’, cuyas raíces etimológicas difieren, podría deberse a una preferencia declarada del autor, hemos clasificado los 75 autores que componen nuestro corpus en tres grandes grupos: el primero comprende aquellos autores que emplearon únicamente términos genéricos latinos; el segundo, los que emplearon únicamente términos genéricos germánicos; el tercero, los que emplearon una combinación de ambos. La vasta mayoría de autores optó por una postura ecléctica, es decir, combinaron términos latinos y germánicos y, de hecho, identificamos dos patrones: por un lado, los autores combinaron términos cuando los signos de puntuación no muestran orden u organización como, por ejemplo, en los sistemas de puntuación de la ‘Rama’ 1. Por otro lado, los autores combinaron términos cuando los signos de puntuación se clasificaron en dos o más grupos por lo que los autores podrían haberse sentido inseguros sobre qué terminología emplear. Sea cual sea la razón, lo que sí sabemos es que los autores no prefirieron una etimología sobre otra. En segundo lugar, 12 autores en total profesaron su preferencia hacia términos germánicos, por lo que emplearon exclusivamente los términos ‘stops’ o ‘marks’ para denominar los signos de puntuación ‘primarios’ y el término ‘marks’, para los signos de puntuación ‘secundarios’. Entre estos autores destacamos a Metcalfe (1771) porque fue el único autor en utilizar el mismo término –‘marks’ en este caso– para referirse a cada uno de sus tres grupos de signos de puntuación. Por último, cuatro autores en total emplearon solo términos latinos o clásicos como ‘points’, ‘pauses’, ‘characters’ y ‘distinctions’. A tenor de los resultados obtenidos, podemos concluir que el índice de autores que profesaron su preferencia hacia una única tradición –latina o, por el contrario, vernácula– fue bajo porque, en total, representaron el 21’33% de los casos. Mientras tanto, el conjunto de autores que combinaron términos etimológicamente diferentes representaron el 78’6% del total. Curiosamente, los sistemas de puntuación más repetidos en nuestro corpus –el de Lowth (1762) y Fisher (1753)- han mostrado tendencias diferentes. Fisher (1753) refleja una clara preferencia por términos germánicos porque denominó sus dos grupos de signos de puntuación como ‘stops’ y ‘marks’. Fisher (1753) intentó promover el movimiento reformista en la lengua inglesa por lo que podríamos inferir que su preferencia por términos vernáculos forma parte de dicho movimiento. Sin embargo, ella no fue pionera en utilizar únicamente terminología

~~378~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

vernácula o, digamos, germánica porque Stirling (1735) fue el primero. Lowth (1762), a su vez, refleja una preferencia hacia la terminología clásica o latina dado que denominó sus dos grupos de signos de puntuación como ‘points’. En este sentido, el estudio acarreado por Michael (1970: 225) muestra que Lowth (1762) reflejó la misma tendencia al abogar por un sistema latino de partes del discurso. Además, este autor fue el primero en defender una terminología genérica puramente clásica. En líneas generales, como Michael (1970) también afirma, Fisher (1753) fue consistente a la hora de defender un sistema vernáculo tanto de partes del discurso como de términos genéricos aplicados a la puntuación. De igual manera, Lowth (1762) fue consistente a la hora de defender un sistema clásico tanto de partes del discurso como de términos genéricos aplicados a la puntuación. Por consiguiente, mientras Fisher (1753) refuerza su rechazo hacia las gramáticas inglesas que parecían traducciones de las gramáticas latinas, Lowth (1762) refuerza su postura conservadora.

6.6.2. Correlación entre los sistemas de partes del discurso analizados por Michael (1970) y los sistemas de puntuación del presente trabajo: modelos latinos vs. modelos vernáculos La búsqueda de similitudes y diferencias entre el estudio de Michael (1970) y el nuestro ha sido fructífera y, dada la extensión de la discusión, debemos resumir nuestros descubrimientos en pocas líneas. La comparación entre ambos estudios ha demostrado que para los autores de las gramáticas tanto las partes del discurso como los grupos de signos de puntuación son “mutuamente excluyentes”, de ahí la variedad en su disposición. Los sistemas de puntuación y los de partes del discurso son meras réplicas del primer sistema creado y, en vista de que los sistemas de puntuación son más numerosos que los de partes del discurso, podríamos concluir que el descontento general con los sistemas de puntuación propuestos hasta el momento era mayor. Además, en lo que a la consistencia de posturas se refiere, hemos observado que Fisher (1753) y Lowth (1762) fueron igualmente consistentes en sendas posturas reformista y conservadora, respectivamente, según el estudio emprendido por Michael. Sin embargo, no todos los autores mostraron el mismo nivel de coherencia.

~~379~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~6.7. Fuentes de las citas y de los ejemplos~~

6.7.1. Fuentes de los ejemplos Con el fin de ilustrar la definición y la función de la puntuación, los autores utilizaron un amplio abanico de ejemplos extraídos de diversas fuentes entre las que destacan por ejemplo: poemas, obras religiosas, revistas o periódicos y obras filosóficas. En total, hemos encontrado 22 fuentes. Además, algunos ejemplos aparecen repetidos en gramáticas escritas por distintos autores por lo que, como ya comentamos en el capítulo 4, estos ejemplos constituyen casos de “customary appropriation” o de “apropiación habitual de ejemplos y teorías”. Asimismo, la identificación de las fuentes de los ejemplos no siempre ha resultado sencilla porque en el caso de Fenning (1771) la fuente no es verídica. Es decir, según este autor, la fuente de cuatro de sus citas es el periódico The Spectator pero, una vez consultada, nos percatamos de que sus citas fueron publicadas en un periódico distinto, en The Guardian, más concretamente en el número 24 publicado por Richard Steele (1672-1729), según The Guardian. A Corrected Edition (1806: 140). Pope (1688-1744), Milton (1608-1674), revistas o periódicos como The Spectator y fuentes religiosas como los Salmos, Proverbios o el Libro de los Romanos proporcionaron los ejemplos con los que los autores ilustraron sus teorías de puntuación. Entre todas las fuentes compiladas en nuestro corpus, el Essay on Criticism (1711) (Ensayo sobre la Crítica), The Essay on Man (1732-1734) (Ensayo sobre el Hombre) y The Imitations of Horace (1733-1738) (Las Imitaciones de Horacio), todos escritos por Pope, fueron unas de las obras más populares entre nuestros autores. Una de las razones que adujeron autores como Fenning (1771) para recurrir a Pope como fuente de ejemplos fue que una de las citas de Pope “contiene un espécimen de todos los puntos [signos de puntuación]” (Fenning, 1771: 158). En cuanto al Essay on Man o Ensayo sobre el Hombre (1732-1734), se citaron desde la primera a la cuarta Epístola y, entre todas ellas, la tercera y la cuarta fueron las más utilizadas. En realidad, Lowth (1762: 168), Webster (1784: 137) y Ash (1785: 170) utilizaron el mismo ejemplo extraído de la tercera Epístola para ilustrar uno de los tantos usos de la coma y el ejemplo reza así:

~~380~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~Gods, partial, changeful, passionate, unjust; Whose attributes were rage, revenge or lust (Pope, 1733: 17, líneas 258-259).~~

~~A modo de ilustración, reproducimos las páginas originales en las que se aprecia cómo los tres autores hacen uso del ejemplo anterior:~~

~~Figura 1. Lowth (1762) Figura 2. Webster (1784) Figura 3. Ash (1785)~~

En líneas generales, la mayoría de los autores reconoce solo, y si acaso, el nombre de la fuente y no hace alusión alguna a la obra consultada. En este sentido, el uso que Corbet (1785: 40) hace de las fuentes es singular porque, a diferencia de los demás autores, él proporciona todos los datos en una de sus citas de la siguiente manera: “Pope’s Essay on Man, Ep. 4. v. 193” (“Ensayo sobre el Hombre de Pope, Epístola 4, verso 193”). Paradise Lost o El Paraíso Perdido de Milton (1667) fue muy citado, sobre todo, los libros primero, quinto, séptimo, octavo, noveno y décimo-segundo. Al igual que tres autores coincidieron en utilizar la tercera Epístola del Ensayo sobre el Hombre de Pope, varios autores citaron los tres mismos ejemplos extraídos del quinto y séptimo libro de Milton. En lo referente a revistas o periódicos, citas extraídas de The Spectator, The Tatler y The Adventurer fueron muy abundantes. En total, ocho autores mencionaron citas

~~381~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

publicadas por Addison en nueve números distintos de The Spectator. De los nueve números del periódico destaca el 73, publicado el jueves día 24 de mayo de 1711, por la cantidad de citas extraídas y el número de autores –ocho en total– que las utilizaron. De hecho, como en los casos de Pope y Milton, los autores coinciden en utilizar la misma cita pero difieren en la forma de reconocer la fuente ya que algunos citan únicamente el título del periódico (como Hodson, 1800) mientras otros citan el título, el autor y el número de la publicación (como Lowth, 1762; Webster, 1784 y Ash, 1785). En cuanto a obras religiosas, La Biblia destaca como fuente de ejemplos para ilustrar las teorías de la puntuación porque, como Pape (1790) afirma, “contiene ejemplos de todos los signos de puntuación” y la tendencia muy acusada por parte de los autores es la de reconocer qué libro, capítulo y verso es el citado. Sermones como los de Laurence Sterne (1760), entre otros, también sirvieron como fuente de ejemplos. En menor medida, los autores también citaron obras de famosos poetas, dramaturgos, filósofos y lexicógrafos. Tres obras de John Dryden (1631-1700), cuatro obras de teatro escritas por William Shakespeare (1564-1616), uno de los capítulos insertos en Essays and Treatises (1754) (Ensayos y Tratados) del filósofo David Hume, los poemas Hudibras (1700), Grongar Hill (1761) y Winter, A Poem (1726) escritos respectivamente por Samuel Butler (1613-1680), John Dyer (1699-1757) y James Thomson (1700-1748), entre otros, son los trabajos escogidos por los autores como fuentes minoritarias de ejemplos. A la hora de identificar los poemas, los autores citaron el título, como por ejemplo “Hudibras” en Story (1783: 67); el autor, como por ejemplo “Dyer” en Fogg (1792-1796: 66); o ambos el título del poema y su autor, como por ejemplo “Thomson’s Winter” en Hodson (1800: 49). Por último, las fuentes clásicas fueron escasas porque solo encontramos dos autores clásicos citados: Menandro (c. 342-292 a. C.) y Plauto (254-184 a. C.), y las citas extraídas de ambos eran traducciones a la lengua inglesa.

6.7.2 Fuentes de la teoría de la puntuación Con respecto a las fuentes de la teoría de la puntuación, los autores no solo citaron sino remitieron al lector a los autores y obras más populares. Ensayos sobre puntuación y elocución al igual que gramáticas y diccionarios escritos por filósofos y personajes políticos relevantes de la época, entre otros, constituyen las fuentes secundarias. En total, 16 fuentes se citaron y, entre ellas, encontramos

~~382~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

casos de “customary appropriation”, es decir, casos de repetición de fuentes. Lo usual es que los autores citen las opiniones de otros sobre la materia o que remitan al lector a las obras de otros autores.

6.7.2.1. Tratados y ensayos citados En total, siete ensayos fueron citados en nuestro corpus. Partiendo de la base de que la sección que hemos analizado en este trabajo trata sobre la puntuación, no es de extrañar que los autores hayan citado tratados de puntuación tales como De Usu et Ratione Interpungendi: An Essay on the Use of Pointing (1772) escrito por Sir James Burrow y Essay on Punctuation (1785) escrito por Joseph Robertson. Cinco tratados de puntuación en total se publicaron a lo largo del siglo dieciocho: Monteith (1704), Burrow (1771), Steel (1786), Robertson (1785) y Stackhouse (1800). Si tenemos en cuenta las fuentes secundarias reconocidas en nuestro corpus, podemos inferir que los tratados de Burrow (1772) y Robertson (1785) fueron los más populares entre los anteriormente mencionados. Sin embargo, no podemos asegurarlo porque si analizáramos las fuentes secundarias no reconocidas, podríamos obtener distintos resultados. Bicknell (1790) reconoció, por medio de una nota a pie de página, que su sección sobre puntuación estaba basada en la de tres autores como Burrow pero no hizo alusión a las obras consultadas. Además, en otras páginas, Bicknell (1790: 127-128) indicó por medio de un asterisco y un obelisco que la información expuesta había sido extraída de “Sir James Burrow”. En líneas generales, hemos observado que las teorías de la puntuación defendidas por Burrow (1772) y Bicknell (1790) son similares porque ambos autores abogan por una teoría triple, es decir, una combinación de las teorías retórica, sintáctica y semántica de la puntuación (Lange, 2013: 19). A su vez, Harrison (1794: 106) reconoció que su discusión sobre los dos puntos había sido extraída de “Robertson” pero sus discusiones difieren en longitud y en contenido. En cuanto a la longitud, Harrison dedicó dos páginas en total a la discusión sobre los dos puntos mientras que Robertson dedicó seis. En lo que a contenido se refiere, la explicación de la función general de los dos puntos que Harrison emplea es una versión simplificada de Robertson. Asimismo, a diferencia de Robertson, Harrison agrega que los dos puntos se utilizan para distinguir cláusulas de sentido imperfecto que ya contienen puntos y comas y, además, Harrison ilustra sus teorías por medio de ejemplos diferentes de

~~383~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

los empleados por Robertson. Por lo tanto, en vista de las diferencias encontradas entre las discusiones de Harrison y Robertson, podríamos sostener que el primero abogó hasta cierto punto por los criterios establecidos por el segundo en la definición de los dos puntos. Aparte de las referencias a tratados de puntuación, hemos encontrado referencias a ensayos sobre elocución y retórica como: An Essay on Elocution (1748) escrito por John Mason, A Course of Lectures on Elocution (1762) escrito por Thomas Sheridan, Elements of Elocution (1781) escrito por John Walker y Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Letters (1783) escrito por Hugh Blair. Además, se citó el ensayo The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle (1746) del francés Charles Batteaux. Crocker (1775: 61) hizo alusión a la importancia que Mason (1762) confiere a los signos de puntuación como indicadores de pausas. La relevancia que la retórica tiene para Crocker se pone de manifiesto en el título mismo de su gramática A Practical Introduction to English Grammar and Rhetoric (1775), es decir, Una introducción práctica a la gramática y retórica Inglesa (1775), por lo que no es de extrañar que Crocker consulte ensayos sobre elocución. A pesar de que este autor no incluyó referencias sobre las páginas consultadas, hemos observado que recurrió al ensayo de Mason para sostener que la doctrina de la puntuación es irregular y para crear su inventario de signos, de ahí la presencia del ‘double period’, el ‘paragraph’ y el ‘double paragraph’ –es decir, el ‘doble periodo’, ‘el párrafo’ y el ‘doble párrafo’– en sendas obras (Mason, 1748: 21-22; Crocker, 1775: 59-61). En cuanto a A Course of Lectures on Elocution de Sheridan (1762), dos autores, en concreto Wright (1794) y Rhodes (1795), elogiaron el trabajo de Sheridan. Por un lado, Wright (1794) citó a Sheridan en una nota a pie de página y lo identificó como “Sheridan”. Habiendo analizado la cita, sostenemos que Wright (1794), en realidad, citó dos obras distintas de Sheridan: sus Lectures (1762) y su Rhetorical Grammar (1781). Asimismo, Rhodes (1795) también citó ambas obras y, a diferencia de Wright (1794), él basó casi toda su discusión sobre la puntuación en las discusiones de Sheridan por lo que podemos deducir que era un gran seguidor suyo. En el caso de Elements of Elocution (1781) de Walker, Harrison (1794) describió a Walker como “un escritor ingenioso con quien estoy en deuda por algunas de las observaciones anteriores” (Harrison, 1794: 110) y, acto seguido, citó algunos versos donde se expone una dirección general sobre las pausas. Como comentamos anteriormente,

~~384~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Harrison (1794) también citó el tratado de puntuación de Robertson (1785) y, curiosamente, ambos autores se refirieron a Walker como un “escritor ingenioso” (Robertson, 1785: 75; Harrison, 1794: 110). Sin embargo, la cantidad de referencias incluidas difieren porque Robertson identificó el autor, la obra y las páginas citadas mientras que Harrison solo identificó su fuente como “Walker sobre la elocución” (Harrison, 1794: 110). Fogg citó un pasaje de Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Letters (1783) de Blair pero únicamente identificó al autor como “Dr. Blair” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184). Fogg (1792-1796) afirma que el signo de exclamación se utiliza libremente y, a modo de ilustración, recurre a una anécdota relatada por Blair. Según esta, un lector se negó a leer detenidamente un libro después de percatarse de que la obra estaba repleta de signos de exclamación (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184), así que tanto Fogg (1792-1796) como Blair (1783) coincidieron en que este signo debe aparecer solo en “obras burlescas” (Fogg, 1792-1796: 184) porque, según Blair, “nada tiene peor efecto que el uso frecuente e impropio” de este signo (Blair, 1783: 423). Finalmente, con respecto al tratado de Batteaux (1746), Rhodes (1795) afirmó que, según “Abbé Batteaux” (Rhodes, 1795: 67), percibimos y empleamos las pausas en el discurso en base a la necesidad respiratoria. En realidad, Rhodes estaba citando a Charles Batteaux (1713-1780), un filósofo francés autor de Les Beaux Arts réduits à un meme principle (1746) o Las Bellas Artes reducidas a un mismo principio. Batteaux (1746) redujo las reglas de puntuación a las “leyes del gusto” tanto en prosa como en poesía porque los signos de puntuación deben ‘imitar’ la ‘naturaleza’ de las pausas respiratorias. Por lo tanto, Rhodes (1795) estaba de acuerdo con el enfoque elocutivo de Sheridan –como hemos visto anteriormente– y, también, con el enfoque estético de Batteaux.

6.7.2.2. Gramáticas citadas Cinco gramáticas se citaron en total: A French Grammar on a New Plan (1709) de Claude Buffier, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1775) de William Perry, The British Grammar (1762) de Buchanan, A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) de Robert Lowth y Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language (1781) de Thomas Sheridan. Con respecto a la Gramática Francesa (1709) de Buffier, Maittaire (1712) comentó el uso que Buffier hizo de las comas. En el pasaje dedicado a la coma, Maittaire (1712: 195) citó a “Mr. Buffier” para

~~385~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

enriquecer la discusión por medio de puntos de vista ajenos y, seguidamente, dar el suyo propio. Como el mismo Maittaire reconoció, los ejemplos utilizados eran traducciones de los de Buffier pero no dio más referencias sobre las páginas consultadas. En realidad, Maittaire (1712) citó dos frases incluidas en la quinta sección de Buffier sobre “La Ponctuation”, más concretamente de la “Troisieme Partie”, página 22, párrafo número 981. Cabe destacar que Maittaire (1712), a diferencia de los autores comentados hasta el momento, citó a Buffier con el objetivo de mostrar su desacuerdo en la omisión de las comas en cláusulas pequeñas que este último sí defiende. Por el contrario, Maittaire (1712: 200) vuelve a referirse a Buffier (1709) posteriormente para sostener que las reglas de puntuación no pueden fijarse ya que cada escritor las aplica de manera diferente, como Buffier “muy juiciosamente observa […]”. Burr (1797) remite al lector a la gramática de Perry (1775) –la cual precedía a su Royal Standard English Dictionary– con el argumento de que la obra contiene más directrices acerca del uso de la puntuación (Burr, 1797: 49). Jonathan Burr (1757-1842) podría haber nacido en Estados Unidos porque su Compendio de gramática inglesa se publicó en Boston, EE.UU., y, como mencionamos anteriormente, aconsejó a los lectores la gramática de Perry (1775) quizás por el éxito innegable que el Dictionary tuvo en dicho país. Es más, cabría destacar que la primera edición del diccionario de Perry, es decir la edición de 1775 publicada en Edinburgo, no contenía ninguna discusión sobre puntuación mientras que la primera edición estadounidense, es decir la edición de 1788 publicada en Worcester (Massachusetts), sí la contenía y en ella se trataban reglas de puntuación, abreviaturas y mayúsculas a lo largo de seis páginas, como Burr (1797: 49) sugirió. Bicknell (1790: 128) citó el pasaje de la Gramática retórica (1781) de Sheridan donde comenta la importancia de la entonación. Bicknell (1790) fue consistente en el reconocimiento de sus fuentes porque incluyó, en forma de notas a pie de página, el nombre del autor y –aunque no siempre– la obra consultada. Así, Bicknell citó casi un párrafo completo inserto en “*la Gramática Retórica de Sheridan” (Bicknell, 1790: 128) que correspondía a las páginas 111-112. En términos generales, la gramática de Bicknell es una “selección de las reglas más instructivas de todas las Gramáticas Inglesas Principales” (1790: título), de ahí las referencias a Sheridan (1781), Buchanan (1762) y Burrow (1772) en su discusión sobre puntuación al igual que

~~386~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

las referencias a “*Walker, Holmes, Ward, Gibbons” en su discusión sobre figuras retóricas (1790: 129). Como acabamos de mencionar, la gramática de Buchanan (1762) fue citada por Bicknell (1790) en forma de nota a pie de página. La gramática de Buchanan (1762), junto con la de Priestley (1761) y Lowth (1762), fue una de las gramáticas más exitosas de los años sesenta del siglo dieciocho (Michael, 1970: 278) y, en sí, era representativa de otras gramáticas como las de Wallis (1653), Greenwood (1711) y Harris (1751) (Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 138-139; extraído de ECEG). Dado el enfoque ecléctico de la gramática de Bicknell (1790) –como ya hemos comentado– y la popularidad de la gramática de Buchanan, es probable que Bicknell considerase la gramática de este último como una fuente relevante de información. No obstante, Bicknell no identificó los pasajes que fueron extraídos de Buchanan (1762), a diferencia de los pasajes que extrajo de Lowth (1762), Burrow (1772) y Sheridan (1781). A pesar de este inconveniente, hemos podido identificar fácilmente el pasaje extraído de Buchanan (1762) porque la definición general de la puntuación que Bicknell (1790) presenta se basa indudablemente en la de Buchanan (1762), como se puede apreciar en las siguientes ilustraciones:

~~Buchanan (1762: 49) Bicknell (1790: 130)~~

Por último, la gramática de Lowth (1762) es la gramática más citada por los autores estudiados. Fogg (1792-1796) incluyó veinticinco disertaciones extra en su obra y, entre ellas, la décima disertación trataba la puntuación (Fogg, 1792- 1796: 181-185). Desde el inicio, Fogg reconoce que su gramática está basada en la de Lowth (Fogg, 1792-1796: 183) y, además, añade que sus explicaciones sobre los signos de puntuación son más claras que las de Lowth (1762) aduciendo, básicamente, que sus comentarios no son tan “abstrusos”. Asimismo, a pesar de

~~387~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

que muchos creen que el sistema gramatical de Fogg está basado en gran parte en el de Lowth, debemos subrayar que el sistema de puntuación propuesto por Fogg se aleja del de Lowth porque ambos sistemas difieren en el número de signos de puntuación presentados. Es decir, mientras que Lowth (1762) definió y comentó siete signos de puntuación en total, Fogg (1792-1796) comentó veintitrés. Igualmente, Shaw (1778) citó a Lowth (1762). Al igual que Fogg, Shaw reconoce en el título de su gramática que esta comprende “una variedad de ejemplos y ejercicios” (Shaw, 1778: título) con el fin de ilustrar sus reglas. Por ello, al comentar las reglas de uso de la coma, Shaw recurrió a las reglas establecidas por “Dr. Lowth” para sostener su veracidad. Por lo tanto, en vista de la similitud existente en las estrategias de mercadotecnia utilizadas, podríamos concluir que Shaw (1778) y Fogg (1792-1796) citaron a Lowth (1762) para ganar adeptos aunque Fogg, a diferencia de Shaw, intentó alejarse de Lowth para obtener un cierto grado de originalidad en su obra.

6.7.2.3. Diccionarios citados Cuatro diccionarios en total fueron mencionados como fuentes: Cyclopaedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1728) de Ephraim Chambers, Dictionary of the Latin Tongue (1736) de Robert Ainsworth, Dictionary of the English Language (1755) de Johnson y Critica Hebraea, or a Hebrew-English Dictionary without Points (1767) de Julius Bate. Para proporcionar más datos a la discusión, Fisher (1753: 39) sostiene que, según el Diccionario de Chambers (1728), la diferencia entre el punto y coma y los dos puntos no ha sido aclarada del todo por los gramáticos. Fisher hizo alusión al autor y a la obra como “Chambers’ Dictionary” pero no dio información sobre las páginas consultadas. En realidad, el comentario de Chambers al que Fisher hace referencia se encuentra en la sección dedicada a los dos puntos en el primer volumen del diccionario, más concretamente en la página 257. En líneas generales Fisher mostró su acuerdo con los argumentos de Chambers y quizás citó el diccionario porque era una obra bien conocida. En cuanto al Diccionario de Johnson (1755), Coote (1788) y Pape (1790) recurrieron a él para clarificar las funciones del punto y coma y los dos puntos. El diccionario de Johnson (1755) fue una obra extremadamente popular porque, entre otros méritos, “fue considerado como una autoridad estándar” (ODNB) y “el diccionario más importante de la lengua inglesa antes del OED”

~~388~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

(Lexicon Grammaticorum, 1996: 482-483, extraído de ECEG). Pape (1790: 11) únicamente identificó el autor de la fuente quien sostuvo que “el uso de los dos puntos no está fijado completamente” (Johnson, 1755). En vista de que sus puntos de vista coinciden, podríamos inferir que Pape citó a Johnson dada su enorme popularidad con el fin último de apoyar sus comentarios que, a su vez, coincidieron con los de Fisher (1753) y Chambers (1728). Considerado como una autoridad en el latín clásico, el Diccionario de Ainsworth (1736) fue mentado por Fogg (1792-1796). Es probable que Fogg recurriese a Ainsworth por sus credenciales como miembro de la Sociedad de Anticuarios aunque Ainsworth no alardeaba de ello en el título de su gramática –como Burrow, entre otros, sí solía hacer– porque se refería a sí mismo como “Robert Ainsworth”. Según Fogg (1792-1796: 184), aunque el signo del párrafo (¶) es un signo de referencia, el signo de sección (§) también se utiliza con la misma función. Para justificar esta afirmación, Fogg (ibid) asegura que la fuente original de información sobre el signo de sección es el diccionario de Ainsworth (1736) por lo que Fogg identifica el autor y la obra de la cita. Finalmente, según Hodgson (1770), existen caracteres literales y numéricos al igual que abreviaturas que no pueden ser aprendidos de memoria sino por medio de la observación y la experiencia (Hodgson, 1770: 166). Para apoyar su afirmación, Hodgson cita la Critica Hebraea (1767) de Bate. Esta obra de Bate es conocida por su enfoque tipológico de las Escrituras por el cual la “correspondencia precisa” entre la lengua hebrea de la Biblia y la realidad es posible cuando los signos de puntuación no son incluidos. Por tanto, según Bate, el uso de la puntuación conlleva la pérdida de este “significado armonioso” (ODNB). En su discusión sobre la importancia de la observación y la experiencia en el aprendizaje de caracteres literales y numerales al igual que abreviaturas, Hodgson (1770: 166) aconseja al lector que “vea a Bate” quien, curiosamente, es un archiexponente de la política anti-puntuación. No obstante, ambos autores coincidieron en que cuantas menos reglas gramaticales se creen, mejor porque el “sentido común” (Bate, 1767: v) y la “observación” (Hodgson, 1770: 166) son suficientes para explicar la gramática al aprendiz.

~~6.8. Casos de plagio Como mencionamos en el capítulo 4, existen varios tipos o niveles de plagio – casos de plagio (‘true plagiarism’), de copia no reconocida (‘unacknowledged~~

~~389~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

copying’), de plagio entre lenguas (‘interlingual plagiarism’), y de apropiación habitual de ejemplos y teorías (‘customary appropriation’)– y a través de la detección de todos estos casos podemos determinar qué gramáticos ejercieron una influencia mayor en el resto. En esta última sección de nuestro estudio pretendemos identificar las influencias existentes entre las obras de nuestro corpus pero nos hemos centrado exclusivamente en las primeras ediciones de las gramáticas disponibles en ECCO. Además, habiendo discutido los casos de ‘apropriación habitual de ejemplos y teorías’ o ‘customary appropriation’ en la sección 6.7 de este resumen, nos centraremos ahora en los casos de ‘copia no reconocida’ o ‘unacknowledged copying’ y casos de plagio o ‘true plagiarism’. Sin embargo, como explicaremos posteriormente, algunos casos deberían considerarse como ‘casos de copia reconocida’. El plagio o, en otras palabras, la copia o reproducción exacta, ha sido identificada no solo en algunas definiciones generales sino en la sección entera. En cuanto a copias exactas, Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789) plagió la sección sobre puntuación completa de Buchanan (1762) y no incluyó referencias sobre sus fuentes. El plagio es evidente porque la única divergencia entre ambas secciones es que la primera eliminó la nota a pie de página que aparecía en la página 50 de la segunda. Con el fin de encontrar más evidencias que apoyen la teoría del plagio, comprobamos el título y el prefacio de la gramática de Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789). En el prefacio no hallamos referencias ni reconocimento alguno de las fuentes consultadas y, además, el título nos confirma la influencia que Buchanan (1762) ejerció sobre Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789) ya que este último copió gran parte de su título. En la siguiente cita, a modo de ilustración, reproducimos los títulos de ambas gramáticas: The British Grammar: or, an Essay, in Four Parts, Towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and inditing elegantly. […] (Buchanan, 1762. Énfasis añadido).

~~English Grammar, or, an Essay towards speaking and writing the English language grammatically, and inditing elegantly (Anon. o Hall [ECEG], 1789. Énfasis añadido).~~

El plagio fue evidente también en Newbery (1745), aunque a menor escala, porque plagió el pasaje de Anon. o Gildon y Brightland (ECEG) (1711) en el que se explica la función general de la puntuación. Newbery (1742), al igual que

~~390~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789), no mentó sus fuentes en el prefacio ni en la sección titulada ‘Suplemento’ (Newbery, 1745: 114-144) donde la discusión sobre puntuación estaba situada. Por tanto, Newbery (1745) constituye otro caso de plagio, entre muchos otros. La otra cara de la moneda la representa J.G. (1799) o Joseph Guy (Navest, 2011: 56; extraído de ECEG) porque, a diferencia de Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789), este autor reconoció desde el principio que su obra se basaba –casi en su totalidad– en la de Ash, Grammatical Institutes (1761). A primera vista la sección sobre puntuación de J.G. (1799) parece una reproducción exacta de la de Ash (1761) pero, gracias a un estudio pormenorizado del prefacio de J.G. (1799), descubrimos que no es así. En el prefacio, J.G. (1799) elogia la gramática de Ash y, seguidamente, reconoce que su obra es una compilación “cuyo objeto difiere del de Ash y al cual se asemeja de alguna manera” (J.G., 1799: iii). De este modo, J.G. reconoce que su gramática no es original (J.G., 1799: vi). Por tanto, partimos de la premisa de que su tratamiento de la puntuación estaba influido por el de Ash y, en realidad, lo estaba. Sin embargo, a diferencia de Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789), J.G. (1799) no puede ser considerado como un caso de plagio sino todo lo contrario, un caso de ‘copia reconocida’ o ‘acknowledged copying’. En este sentido encontramos un caso de la misma índole en Wilson (1792). Wilson reconoció, al estilo de J.G. (1799), que su tratamiento de la puntuación era una versión mejorada de la gramática de Fisher (1753), como el mismo título de su gramática indica. Wilson (1792), por tanto, respetó y defendió la discusión sobre puntuación de Fisher (1753) hasta el punto de que él solo añadió funciones extra a algunos signos de puntuación como la coma. Por este motivo consideramos que Wilson (1792), al igual que J.G. (1799), epitomiza el caso de ‘copia reconocida’. A su vez, la antítesis de Wilson (1792) es Wise (1754) porque, aunque ambos autores basaron sus obras en Fisher (1753), el segundo sí plagió. Es decir, el párrafo introductorio al tratamiento de la puntuación en Wise (1754) es, en sí mismo, una ligera modificación del de Fisher (1753), como podemos apreciar en las siguientes excerptas: The Stops are used to shew [sic] what Distance of Time must be observed in Reading: They are so absolutely necessary to the better understanding [sic] what we read and write, that, without a strict Attention to them, all Writing would be confused, and liable to many Misconstructions (Fisher, 1753: 37).

~~391~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Además de por la evidente semejanza entre los dos párrafos, consideramos que Wise (1754) plagió a Fisher (1753) porque no reconoció sus fuentes en ninguna parte de la gramática. En general, la sección sobre puntuación de Lowth (1762) es la más copiada en nuestro corpus porque las secciones sobre puntuación de seis gramáticas –Anon. o Doway (ECEG) (1781), Webster (1784), Ash (1785), Devis (1791), Bicknell (1790) y Hodson (1800)– son copias de la de Lowth (1762). Aunque todos estos autores seleccionaron y descartaron fragmentos de Lowth (1762), sus secciones eran casi idénticas; prueba de ello es el siguiente pasaje que aparece en cinco de las seis gramáticas anteriormente mencionadas: “debemos distinguir entre un sintagma imperfecto, una oración simple y una oración compuesta para determinar la aplicación apropiada del punto [signo de puntuación] que la indica.” (Lowth, 1762: 160; Anon. o Doway (ECEG), 1781: 500; Webster, 1784: 133; Ash, 1785: 163; Bicknell, 1790: 122-123; Devis, 1791: 122). En realidad, el párrafo introductorio en el que se determina la función general de la puntuación es uno de los pasajes más copiados por los autores. En cuanto a los seis autores que copiaron a Lowth (1762) en mayor o menor grado, debemos distinguir aquellos que sí plagiaron de los que no. En total, solo dos autores –Anon. o Doway (1781) y Devis (1791)– constituyen casos de plagio por tres razones: primeramente, ninguno de ellos reconoció sus fuentes en sus secciones sobre puntuación; en segundo lugar, en los títulos de sus gramáticas no se confirma tampoco la influencia de otras obras y, por último, ninguno de ellos denomina sus gramáticas como compilaciones. Como afirmamos al inicio de esta sección, nuestro principal objetivo es la identificación de posibles influencias entre los autores de las gramáticas. Gracias a este estudio, hemos podido trazarlas y plasmarlas en el siguiente esquema donde mostramos cómo estaban conectadas entre sí las gramáticas:

~~392~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~J. G. (1799) Anon. o Doway (ECEG) (1781) Ash (1761) Webster (1784)~~

~~Bicknell (1790) Devis (1791) Lowth (1762)~~

~~Hodson (1800) Buchanan (1762)~~

~~Anon. o Gildon y Brightland (ECCO) (1711) Anon. o Hall (ECEG) (1789)~~

~~Newbery (1745) Fisher (1753)~~

~~Fenning (1771) Wise (1754) Wilson (1792)~~

~~Story (1783)~~

~~Esquema 1. Autores según los casos de plagios encontrados~~

Asimismo, en cuanto a las influencias “indirectas” entre gramáticas, hemos encontrado tres casos diferentes de “relaciones triangulares” pero aquí solo nos referiremos al primero de ellos: - (i) Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) y Devis (1791) - (ii) Coote (1788), Murray (1795) y Gardiner (1799) - (iii) Ward (1766), Metcalfe (1771) y Meikleham (1795) Webster (1784) declaró que su discusión sobre la puntuación estaba basada en la de Lowth (1762), así que resumió y modificó la oración introductoria de este último: Punctuation is the art of marking in writing the several pauses, or rests, between sentences, and the parts of sentences, according to their proper quantity or proportion, as they are expressed in a just and accurate pronunciation. (Lowth, 1762: 154; énfasis añadido).

~~Punctuation is the art of marking in writing the several pauses or rests between sentences and the parts of sentences (Webster, 1784: 132; énfasis añadido).~~

~~393~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

Posteriormente, Devis (1791) plagió la oración introductoria de Webster (1784): Pointing, or Punctuation, is the Art of marking in writing the several pauses, or rests, between sentences, and the parts of a sentence. (Devis, 1791: 121; énfasis añadido).

En vista de la más que evidente similitud entre las tres oraciones introductorias, la oración de Webster (1784) es relevante desde un punto de vista diacrónico porque gracias a ella hemos podido detectar influencias entre tres gramáticas diferentes: Lowth (1762), Webster (1784) y Devis (1791). De este modo, podríamos sostener que Devis (1791) plagió realmente a Lowth (1762) a través de Webster (1784), de ahí que los tres formen un “triángulo de influencia”, es decir, “una relación triangular”.

7. Conclusiones El análisis aquí llevado a cabo ha arrojado luz sobre el estatus y la evolución de la puntuación a lo largo de todo un siglo: el dieciocho. El estudio de las gramáticas que comprenden nuestro corpus ha demostrado que la importancia de la puntuación es notable porque la vasta mayoría de gramáticas contenían una sección dedicada a esta materia. La puntuación se ha definido, a grandes rasgos, como una doctrina imperfecta cuya relevancia estriba en que es útil para evitar interpretaciones incorrectas de los textos. Aunque necesita ser estandarizada, la puntuación es considerada como un arte que contribuye a escribir y leer bien. En cuanto a teorías de la puntuación, hemos observado que los autores llegaron prácticamente a un consenso dado que la gran mayoría abogó por una combinación de las teorías retórica y gramatical para poder, así, transmitir el sentido correcto del texto. Por tanto, según los autores de las gramáticas inglesas del siglo dieciocho, la puntuación está ligada a ambos: a la escritura y a la oralidad. En este sentido, la sección sobre puntuación se ubicó en diversas partes de la gramática como en las dedicadas a la sintaxis, la ortografía o el habla. Sin embargo, las secciones que refuerzan la naturaleza escrita de la puntuación, tales como la de ‘Sintaxis’ y ‘Ortografía’, prevalecieron sobre las demás quizás porque muchos autores incluyeron un inventario amplio de las llamadas ‘marks’ cuyas funciones se explicaron en términos sintácticos y ortográficos. Los sistemas de puntuación recopilados demuestran que hubo una tendencia muy acusada: el primer sistema de puntuación ideado por Anon. o Gildon y Brightland (ECEG)

~~394~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

(1711) fue extendido y modificado en gramáticas posteriores. De hecho, la abundancia de sistemas encontrados demuestra que los autores defendieron sistemas de puntuación multifuncionales aunque, en general, los autores prefirieron clasificar los signos de puntuación en dos grupos, de ahí la supremacía de la ‘Rama’ 2 y, en especial, del sistema de puntuación de Lowth (1762) que fue el más seguido durante todo el siglo. Se logró un consenso en lo que a funciones y símbolos de los signos de puntuación se refiere. Con respecto a la terminología genérica utilizada por los autores, la etimología de los términos ha resultado ser un indicador de la postura del autor hacia un movimiento reformista o, por el contrario, hacia un movimiento clásico en el tratamiento de la puntuación. Entre todos los términos empleados, los autores abogaron principalmente por el término ‘marks’, de raíz germánica, para denominar el grupo ‘secundario’ de signos de puntuación, mientras que prefirieron los términos ‘points’ y ‘stops’, de raíz latina y germánica respectivamente, para denominar el grupo ‘primario’ de signos de puntuación. En línea con estos resultados, observamos que la amplia mayoría de autores prefirieron un sistema de puntuación ecléctico en vista de que combinaron términos genéricos latinos y germánicos. En este sentido, cabe destacar que Fisher (1753) y Lowth (1762), cuyos sistemas de puntuación fueron los más seguidos, mostraron consistencia en sus respectivas posturas hacia un movimiento vernáculo y clásico a tenor de las etimologías germánica y latina de los términos que utilizaron. Las influencias que estos dos autores –al igual que otros– ejercieron sobre el resto se han identificado también no solo en los sistemas de puntuación sino en el uso de las citas. El análisis de las fuentes consultadas y reconocidas por los autores ha demostrado que estos recurrieron principalmente a obras contemporáneas sobre gramática y retórica. Asimismo, también hemos detectado casos de plagio: los plagios fueron menos numerosos que los casos de ‘copia no reconocida’ porque muchos autores reconocieron que sus obras derivaban de otras. En resumen, a pesar del largo inventario de sistemas de puntuación encontrado, a través de este estudio observamos que se alcanzó un consenso general casi por completo en el tratamiento de la puntuación.

~~395~~

~~Punctuation in eighteenth-century English grammars~~

~~396~~